Labour education ministers on Tuesday offered conflicting visions of student funding.

And any attempt at building a consensus on university fees seems as far away as ever.

In the Welsh Assembly, education minister, Jane Davidson, said she was opposed to fees paid before beginning a course because they would limit access to higher education.

Jane Davidson: "I am opposed to top-up fees"

"Personally I am opposed to top-up fees. I do not see it as an issue benefiting our sector in Wales when one of our biggest agendas in Wales is about widening participation."

"I have already said to this Assembly that I do not believe we should have fees in advance of receiving an education at higher education level because that is a disincentive and what we want to do is create incentives."

Meanwhile, Labour's higher education minister in Westminster, Margaret Hodge, was emphasising that paying for university was good value for students.

'Good investment'

"In the UK we see paying for education as a cost ... the Americans see it very much as an investment," she said.

"If you set the cost to the individual student alongside the benefit that accrues to that individual, just by virtue of having had a degree, it's enormous - �10,000 debt set against �400,000 average additional earnings shows you the extent to which this is a good investment."

Margaret Hodge: university fees are "a good investment"

After over a year of internal inquiry, the government's review of student funding and top-up fees seems no nearer to resolution.

The difference in approach between education ministers in Wales and Westminster reflects the gulf in attitudes among Labour ministers and MPs.

International Development Secretary Clare Short has described top-up fees as "a really bad idea" - and dozens of MPs are publicly opposed to them.

And while it appeared a few weeks ago that the government was hinting towards a system of means-tested top-up fees and bursaries, it now seems that nothing has been decided.

Paying for loans

Briefing documents from the Department for Education have mooted a tuition fee payable by all students, without means-testing.

This would mean that student funding would not be linked to parental income, or lack of it.

"Does the focus of our current student finance system on a student's parental income, rather than their own later earnings, discourage students from thinking about degrees as a long-term investment?" says the discussion paper.

And it could suggest that the funding system to be unveiled in January could incorporate elements of both top-up fees and a graduate tax, rather than being seen as mutually exclusive.

There could also be a more prominent role for business, with the prospect of student loans becoming closer to a market rate - at present they attract a zero rate of interest in real terms.

And it could point towards larger, long-term loans, repayable with interest after graduation, through the tax system.

This would provide universities with extra funding, without the political difficulties of demanding up-front payments from students and their families.

But the education department says that no decisions have been taken.

"Individual policy solutions are extremely premature. We are just trying to have a reasonable debate," said a spokesperson.