As Education Secretary Charles Clarke presented his Higher Education Bill to the Commons yesterday, The Northern Echo gauged the reaction from students, universities and MPs.

A SUNDERLAND University spokesman said: "We have said all along that variable and increased fees sends the wrong messages to potential students with fewer family resources and may deter them from applying to university.

"That is still our belief, but at the same time we, like other universities, need additional funding and it is likely that we will raise fees, while offering extra bursaries.

"We are committed to doing everything we can do to offer students, especially those from less advantaged backgrounds, access which is affordable."

DURHAM University spokes-man Keith Seacroft said: "We do welcome the publication of the Bill because at least we now know what the Government is proposing.

"We welcome the addition of funding to universities.

"Late last year we set up a task force of staff and student representatives to look at fees and other issues.

"They will look in detail at the Bill and complete their discussions. Until that is done we will not be making a decision on what level of fees we will be going for."

YORK University said it was important to achieve a balance between creating opportunities and proper funding levels.

Director of communications Hilary Layton said: "There are two things that are really important to us. The first is that there should be opportunities for all in higher education, so that anyone who could benefit from a university education should have the opportunity to have one.

"The second thing is that universities should be properly funded for the teaching they do, because the funding per student has declined every year for the last 20 years, so we need more funding in the system."

They have not yet set a figure for the fees and say they will not do so until they have seen the details of the Bill.

NEWCASTLE University said it would not be making any comment on the Bill until senior managers had had time to consider the implications in more detail.

However, the university has already decided in principle to charge the maximum £3,000 fees and plough a "very significant" amount of money back into bursaries and scholarships, subject to passing the legislation which will allow this to happen.

A university spokesman said: "This would have the effect of encouraging more bright young people from low-income families, especially those in the North-East, to benefit from a first-class university education."

THE University of Teesside's vice-chancellor, Professor Graham Henderson, said: "We welcome the concessions made today by the Government, particularly the bigger package of financial support for poorer students.

"These steps go part of the way to meeting some of our concerns that Parliament should not do anything that will put students off applying to go to university.

"We will be watching developments in Parliament with great interest and we will continue to press for policies that favour the sustained and equitable growth and development of all universities. It is on that basis that we remain opposed in principle to variable tuition fees.

"We still believe it would be far better if higher education in the UK was properly funded from general taxation, but we do understand that the Government believes the only realistic way of getting more money into higher education is through increasing the contribution from graduates."

NORTHUMBRIA University vice-chancellor Kel Fidler said: "Something needs to be done because universities are substantially under-funded at the moment. More money is needed for salaries, for buildings, for facilities.

"The big fear, and particularly so for rebel Labour MPs, is that the notion of variable top-up fees with a maximum of £3,000 will soon lead to a much higher, perhaps unlimited, maximum. And that this will remove the chance of the less well-off, or the debt-averse from poorer backgrounds going to the more prestigious and expensive universities.

"Providing today's announcement of a £3,000 cap on the maximum - to be reviewed in 2009 - holds, then that fear goes away.

"Meanwhile, it seems likely that all universities will charge £3,000, and thus the top-up will not be viewed as being a variable fee. With the present top-up at £1,125, there is not much room for significant variability that will disadvantage anyone."

STUDENTS' UNION REACTION

MARTIN INGS, president of the University of Teesside's Students' Union and former North-East representative on the National Students' Union, strongly opposed the Bill.

He said: "These concessions are nothing like enough for students and their families but they may buy off the Labour backbench MPs.

"Our union whole-heartedly believes that students from the poorest backgrounds should be helped. However, students from more middle class backgrounds will be left with enormous debts and it may put off thousands from going to university.

"It was leaked that the Government considered 40 options but have presented us with just one. We don't even know what the others were and that just isn't good enough.

"We will continue to fight this proposal all the way."

The Students' Union at Durham University, like others around the country, has campaigned against top-up fees. Its president, Craig Jones, could not be contacted yesterday, but he has warned previously that the new charges could triple the debt students face and become like a second mortgage.

He and his members fear that in future students will be limited to courses they can afford, rather than those they want to take or are suited for.

They are also concerned that the Government will use the introduction of top-up fees to further cut the central funding of universities, and that the cutting of some courses at Durham will become more widespread under the new system.

Newcastle University Union Society said that MPs should not be "bought" by the concessions outlined yesterday in the published Higher Education Bill.

The society argued the concessions were "purely masking the additional debt and hardship that students could face".

Communication officer Scilla Monck said students would be forced to choose a university according to what they could afford, rather than their academic abilities.

She said: "There is no doubt that universities need more funding. However, the Bill would penalise students who want to improve their education. Education is a public service that everyone should have a right to. Graduates do not solely benefit from education, society does."

She said Newcastle University's Union Society would continue the campaign against the Bill, so that young people could have a future in higher education.

The president of York University Students' Union, Chris Jones, criticised the Government's plans.

He said: "The variable fees are a major issue. As a students' union we are opposed to any fees whatsoever, particularly the variable fees which mean that people are going to university based on how much they can pay, not how suitable they may be for the course.

"I can sympathise with any higher education establishment because funding is decreasing quite rapidly but there needs to be a better way of funding higher education.

"It is good that the Government has recognised this. It is just that the way they have done it is wholly undesirable."

Neither Sunderland University's Students' Union president Ian Turton nor vice-president Megan Janes were available to comment.

But members of the students' union executive joined the demonstration against the tuition fees in London before Christmas.

North-East MPs split over Bill to raise university funding

THE region's MPs were split on the introduction of top-up fees legislation.

Gerry Steinberg (Lab; City of Durham) said: "The Government has not taken into consideration the problems that I see with the Bill, so I don't see how I can support it.

"It means youngsters will have huge debts hanging over them when they leave college, which is not acceptable, and it was a manifesto commitment not to introduce fees."

Vera Baird (Lab; Redcar) said: "I don't support the Bill at the moment, but it depends on the small print.

"I am very worried about the issue of variable fees.

"It seems inevitable that people from poorer homes will be priced out of the best courses. Top-up fees won't stop at £3,000, because universities will want them to go up."

Kevan Jones (Lab; Durham North) said: "The statement did nothing to address my fears for regional universities, such as Sunderland, Teesside or Northumbria.

"Unless there are dramatic changes I will be voting against the Bill, because it will introduce a market into higher education and do nothing to benefit the majority of my constituents."

Frank Cook (Lab; Stockton North) said: "I am opposed to top-up fees and my view has not changed as a result of Charles Clarke's statement."

Derek Foster (Lab; Bishop Auckland) said: "This is the best way to get substantial sums to British universities, which they need if they are to retain their competitive edge and play a part in the economic regeneration of our region.

"The concessions that the Government has made have taken care of most of my worries about the impact on students from poorer families."

Ashok Kumar (Lab; Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) said: "I support the Government, which has got it about right in terms of giving financial support to working-class families.

"Universities need money if they are going to be world class, have a strong research and engineering base and have good teaching facilities."

Dari Taylor (Lab; Stockton South) said: "Higher education has a serious financial shortfall and I see it as acceptable that those who benefit most should make a contribution.

"It is fair that those who receive the privilege of university education, and the opportunity to earn a significantly higher salary throughout their working life, should contribute."

John Cummings (Lab; Easington, east Durham) said: "I am still keeping my mind open while I consider all the options."