In his interview with The Times today, Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, reflects correctly on the risks that the Government ran when legislating for university top-up fees in 2004, and notes that the policy has become far less controversial. Although rather predictable quarters such as the National Union of Students and the Liberal Democrats have to be convinced yet, most Labour rebels have abandoned this fight and the Conservatives have changed their stance completely. The question is no longer whether top-up fees will be retained but the level they might rise to once the opportunity to consider an increase arrives in 2010. This is an extraordinary political shift.

It is also one that should produce real and tangible benefits for the higher education sector swiftly. By the end of the decade spending on the universities will increase by £3 billion from the taxpayer, £800 million from the old tuition fee formula and a net £1.35 billion from the new top-up fee source. This will not, at a stroke, ensure that universities in this country can compete with those of the United States, but it offers an opportunity, at least, to reverse what has been a long decline.

In one respect, however, the brave new world for higher education that starts in the coming academic term is something of a disappointment. When the top-up fee system was devised, ministers, advisers and officials hoped that it would be the catalyst for a “market” in university courses. With institutions offered the freedom to charge between nothing and an additional £3,000 a year, it was thought that they would levy different fees not only according to the overall reputation of the university but also the popularity and status of particular subjects. No one believes that all degrees are worth the same and it would be rational for the distinctions that exist to be reflected in top-up fees.

This, as a rule, has not happened. Most universities have sought to bring in the £3,000 maximum at the earliest possible opportunity. Some have been more imaginative. The University of Northumbria is one of those that will ask for the full amount and then make a “cashback” offer to certain students. In most instances, nevertheless, a similar (and higher fee) is being sought from the vast majority of students, irrespective of the university where they are located and the course undertaken.

This may ease the financial pressure on higher education, but it is hardly a “market” as was imagined. Mr Johnson admits this, states unambiguously that it is “important to have variability” and asserts that he would “like to see a market that says some courses cost nothing and some cost the £3,000 limit”. The Secretary of State is not the bursar-in-chief to universities, which are, properly, independent bodies. Yet those who work in higher education would be wise to do more than merely ponder on his words.

In fairness, institutions will probably innovate once they become familiar with the regime. Already there are less established universities that, setting the top-up fee at £3,000 this year, have discovered that the number of young people coming to them has fallen. Aspiring students are not fools and it will not be very long before valuefor-money becomes the crucial factor in determining where they apply to university. This might not be a “market” as such but the sense of being a “customer” of higher education is now becoming established. The customer may not always be right, of course, but he or she is ignored at a retailer’s peril.