The row over tuition fees was reignited this week, when Business Secretary Lord Mandelson announced the set-up of an independent tuition fee review to assess the “balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers”.

The long-awaited review, intended to assess the “balance of contributions to universities by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers”, was originally arranged to win over Labour backbenchers in 2004. Former education secretary, Charles Clarke, guaranteed a future assessment of the policy in response to a concern that tuition fees would deter students from poorer backgrounds from applying to university.

Despite these worries the number of students applying to university has increased. This year, those denied a place at university rose by 30,000 to 141,118.

The announcement of the review panel was met with disapproval from student union leaders. They view the assessment, which won’t be completed until after the next general election, as an opportunity for Labour and Conservative MPs to postpone commitment to a policy on tuition fees.

Writing in a letter published in The Guardian, The National Union of Students (NUS) said it was “appalled by Labour and Conservative attempts to duck difficult questions on student fees and finance at the next general election.”

Dom Weldon, Chair of Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats, joined in the attack. “Whilst Labour and the Tories try to increase tuition fees and student debt, the Lib Dems are the only party standing up for students,” he said.  Weldon has reasserted the “party’s commitment to scrapping fees”, claiming that the Liberal Democrats offered a “natural home for students”.

The Liberal Democrats may be buoyed by the NUS letter, of which CUSU President Tom Chigbo is a signatory. Aside from merely criticising the policy, it threatened to mobilise the power of the student vote in university towns and cities.

“In 2005, the student vote made a significant difference in towns and cities across the UK,” it said. “Our message is clear: candidates must vote with us, or students won’t vote for them.”

That the Liberal Democrats might provide an electoral option for frustrated students has been undermined by uncertainty toward its policy of scrapping tuition fees, voiced at their September party conference.

Pointing to Nick Clegg’s “repeated indications” that the Lib Dems should drop their opposition to fees, the Cambridge University Labour Club has maintained that “no party has a monopoly of virtue on the issue.” George Owers, CULC chair, has said he is “absolutely against any lifting of the cap on fees”, and asserted the belief that “the current status quo is wrong”.

The NUS letter also expressed great concern regarding the composition of the review panel, which is to consist of four leading business consultants, the vice-chancellors of both Birmingham and Aston universities and Rajay Naik, former chairman of the British Youth Council.

Commenting Naik’s inclusion, the NUS President Wes Streeting was “pleased that the Government has listened to our calls for a student voice to be included on this panel”.

There is concern, however, over the independence of the review team.

“We are in no doubt that a review panel dominated by business and university leaders is designed to stitch up students with yet another inflation busting hike in tuition fees,”  Streeting said.

The appointment of Lord Browne, Cambridge alumnus and former Chief Executive of BP, to head of the review, has provoked a mixed reaction.

Lord Broers, the University of Cambridge’s Vice-Chancellor between 1996 and 2003, praised the decision on the basis that Browne, known to be one of Tony Blair’s favourite industry representatives, would bring “formidable intellectual rigour” to the review.

Student leaders, however, may doubt the capacity of a businessman, whose Desert Island Discs luxury was a lifetime’s supply of “great cigars”, in leading an independent inquiry into the funding of higher education.

In talking of how students become “choosier and more demanding consumers” as they pay more for higher education, Lord Mandelson has framed an ongoing debate surrounding the shaping of a market in higher education. Talk of a higher ceiling on the maximum tuition fee has worried those concerned that such a move might stifle the opportunities of applicants from poorer backgrounds.

Andy McGowan, CUSU targets school officer, reiterated the problem of increased top-up fees: “I am very concerned about the impact that higher fees may have on widening participation, in terms of adding to a fear of debt and a market where students choose universities based on how much they cost”.

The selection of two university vice-chancellors to sit on the review panel will do little to comfort concerned students. A survey of vice-chancellors in March of this year revealed that, on average, they would like to see the ceiling on student fees rise to £6,500.

The University of Cambridge confirmed they would not comment on the issue until the review is released. Students are likely to wait in uncertainty until then.