Despite vocal opposition within his own party, Tony Blair claimed that this proposal was the only way to secure the necessary funds, and the issue was seen as a key test of his leadership.

This is because the policy was not included in the Labour party manifesto in 2001 – and some would argue it went against the line reading "We will not introduce top-up fees and have legislated to prevent them".

The Act incorporates several key changes to the financial arrangements of higher education students, including many additional terms that were added to convince those who opposed earlier drafts.

The principal argument in favour of a new funding system is that British universities are currently critically underfunded, and an increased level of fees will result in a cash injection and prevent them collapsing.

Additionally, much is made of the need for British institutions to be internationally "competitive" in terms of quality and resources, and that this is impossible to achieve without a reform of their funding.

Further to this argument, it is argued that since studies show that most graduates earn more during their career than non-graduates, it is logical that they should be the ones to pay for this opportunity, not the public at large.

Many students have had to take up part-time work in order to pay living costs while studying, and this has been shown to have an adverse effect on their results.

Although the Bill removes the need to pay fees up front – meaning that students may have more spending money while studying – it will still leave them with a greater debt at the start of their careers.

A second line of criticism is that the introduction of variable fees represents a step towards the privatisation of education, and makes degrees into products quite unnecessarily.