I am one of the members of the independent panel which yesterday published the Browne Report on higher education in England.

Not surprisingly, a lot of the comment has focussed on universities raising their charges for tuition, and whether this will discourage young people, especially from low income backgrounds, from going to universities. We think that the financing system we've shaped will be affordable for anyone. Students won't need to pay upfront, won't repay unless earning above median income (£21,000 a year), won't see their interest accumulate if they are only just earning above the threshold. The IFS has confirmed that the lowest paid graduates will pay less under our system than the current one. In addition, financing will be available for the first time for part time study, which will greatly help many 'non-traditional' students.

There is a deeper fairness in asking graduates to pay more, and the taxpayer less. At present graduates are heavily subsidised by all taxpayers, including hairdressers, cab drivers, shop assistants, plumbers, who will all have paid for their own vocational training if they had it. Yet the private return to tertiary education is higher in the UK than in any other OECD country. Higher education generates both social and private returns, and it is proper for public money to support the system, but there must be private investment too.

This principle has long been accepted in England – charging for tuition was introduced in the 1997 Dearing Report. The innovation in the Browne Report is ensuring that higher education will remain accessible to all through a sustainable financing structure built around affordability for graduates.

Less commented on (on day one) are our proposals for a radical reform of the structure of UK universities, moving from a centrally planned economy – funds and places administered and rationed by the HEFCE – to a regulated market. The funding attaches to students, the students will choose universities that teach them well, and universities will have a strong incentive to improve the quality of teaching. Some universities which fear they will fare badly have criticised this aspect of the report, but it won't just help the 'elite' universities. Those which already have a good reputation for teaching will benefit, and we might see more concentrate on teaching. Some might innovate with 2-year and sandwich courses. There could be entry by new providers into higher education. Above all, student numbers can continue to increase, which would not be possible without the reforms we proposed.

Still, the changes are obviously going to be intensely debated, as they should be. I'll post links in a few days to some of the reaction.