The headline figures of £30000 debt for new graduates will lead a large number of potential students to think again about whether they should go to university. If they decide not to, that will be a disaster. It will be a disaster for our economy because the nation needs many highly qualified graduates. Although there has been a recent reduction in graduate jobs, demand for highly skilled people will grow again as the economy recovers. These proposals will also be a disaster for social justice because the people who will be most put off coming into higher education will be those on low incomes – both mature students and young people whose parents do not have enough money to help and support them throughout their time at university and when they graduate.

The impact these proposals will have on the university system as a whole is also likely to be very damaging. If we go down the route that Lord Browne is proposing, large inequalities between universities will result. We must not devise a system of student support and university finance that suits only the elite research universities: we have to look at the sector as a whole. Most students do not go to research-intensive universities; they study at a large range of other institutions. While it is legitimate to vary the funding for research between universities, it is important that every university should have similar resources to provide good teaching facilities and to attract good teaching staff. Otherwise we risk a two-tier HE system which penalises the poor, mature students and students from black and minority ethnic groups, most of whom go to big city post-1992 universities. Big gaps will develop between those universities which are able to charge very high fees, and others which are not because their students cannot afford them.

The Browne report is modelled on a projected 80 per cent cut in the government’s teaching grant to universities; there will be no more government funding to teach nearly all subjects. If this happens in the comprehensive spending review next week, at a slightly lower percentage cut of 65-70 per cent, even a £6000 fee, nearly double the current fee, would leave a funding gap. Most universities will have to charge between £7500 and £8000 to make up the gap. To do this will mean they cannot fill their places because students will not come at that price. Some universities will go under; others will be forced into unworkable mergers. The uncertainty and disruption will be enormous and will certainly affect our global reputation.

Finally, the attempt by Browne to introduce a more progressive loan repayment system is also flawed. Those who will pay back most are those who cannot clear their debts fast, that is those on low to middle income lifetime earnings. They will pay much more in interest than the rich.

While there was a strong case for asking graduates to share the cost of their higher education with the taxpayer, there is no case for passing the whole cost on to them. Society and the economy benefit, as well as the individual. There are big externalities in this investment and a market approach which treats universities like vacuum cleaners will not do. Progressives in all parties should fight what is being proposed by Browne and the premise of 80 per cent cuts in teaching funding on which his proposals are based.