Something must be done about student poverty, but ruling out top-up fees is not necessarily the right answer. Evidence is mounting of students too hard-up to eat properly, study effectively or even stay the course, and of others put off applying to higher education. The present system, as Diana Green points out, bears most heavily on those, such as single parents, least able to take on debts or part-time jobs, that is on those who are already exempt from paying fees.
Evidence of the deterrent effects of hardship - most of it still anecdotal, as Claire Callender says, but supported by application figures - was set out before the House of Commons education select committee. You would not know it from the committee's report, which demonstrates once again the egregious effects of executive control over parliamentary business. Labour used its majority on the committee to down-play evidence that policies introduced in 1997 are flawed, a corruption of the parliamentary process more serious than cash for questions or passports for party supporters.
By finally coming off the fence over top-up fees, the government has not only trumped the committee. It has also preempted the Taylor report on university finance. Universities that might have wished to introduce much higher bursaries for poorer students paid for by higher fees from the rich will now find their scope severely constrained. This means that it will be more than ever incumbent on the government to sort out funding for poorer students to make sure that the spectre of debt does not vitiate their admirable policy of widening access to higher education.
Between now and the election The THES will be looking at the whole student-support system: what is on offer; who gets what; where the shoe pinches; and what the options are for reform. Our aim is to come up with a preferred option to put to the politicians before polling day and to persuade incoming ministers of whatever party that this area must be looked at again. Reform is needed regardless of policy on fees.