The government has announced plans for universities with high-quality teaching to be able to charge more than the current maximum of £9,000 for tuition fees for new students from 2017.

The plans were announced today in a white paper entitled ‘Success as a Knowledge Economy’, which also contains proposals to make it easier for new institutions to gain degree-giving powers, and for a “transparency revolution” in which universities will be forced to publish data on how those from disadvantaged backgrounds and/or ethnic minorities fair during the admissions process.

The paper says that if a university has been deemed by an inspection to be offering a sufficiently high level of teaching quality, then from autumn 2017 it will be able to increase student fees in line with inflation. The list of  universities that will be allowed to do so will be announced from 2016-17.

The plan to open up course fees is designed to increase competition, and to expand the number of options available to students.

The paper also includes plans to make it easier for “new and innovative providers offering high quality higher education” to award students degrees, claiming: “Competition between providers in any market incentivises them to raise their game, offering consumers a greater choice of more innovative and better quality products and services at lower cost. Higher education is no exception.”

“There is no compelling reason for incumbents to be protected from high quality competition... If we place too much emphasis on whether a provider has a long established track record, this by definition will favour incumbents, and risks shutting out high quality and credible new institutions,” it adds.

'Success as a Knowledge Economy' also argues that information concerning the price and quality of degrees is crucial “if the higher education market is to perform properly” but that currently there is “little pressure” on providers to “differentiate themselves in this way”.

Further, in light of this, it is stated that “the market needs to be re-oriented and regulated proportionately - with an explicit primary focus on the needs of students”. There is a proposal for the creation of a watchdog, the Office for Students, to oversee this reorientation.

It also places an emphasis upon improving access to university for marginalised groups: “we want to ensure that all young people with the potential to benefit have an opportunity to go to university”.

“Although applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds are at record levels,” the paper notes, “a disproportionate number of entrants to Russell Group universities come from a tiny minority of the country’s state-funded secondary schools”

Research for the paper found that English 18-year-olds from the “most advantaged” backgrounds were 6.3 times more likely to go to institutions which will qualify for increased fee in 2015 than those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds.

The reports also highlighted the higher dropout rate among black students, and disparities in attainment between different ethnic minorities once at university. It calls for increased transparency on the part of universities about admissions demographics.

Speaking ahead of the paper’s publication, Lord Chris Patten, Chancellor of Oxford University, criticised any potential introduction of intake quotas for ethnic minority students at universities.

In an interview for The Telegraph, he said: “I am in favour of universities recognising their responsibilities for promoting social inclusion but I don’t think that if  you want high class universities you should expect them to lower their standards in order to make up for some inadequacies in our secondary education system.”

Lord Patten added: “I don’t support quotas at universities. Nobody will explain to me how you can make a system of quotas work while retaining the highest  admissions standards.

“Quotas must mean lower standards. There are better ways of addressing  social inclusion at universities," he added.

A University spokesperson said: "We are analysing the White Paper and will take time to review its contents. We welcome its risk-based approach and support the continued recognition of the importance of teaching quality."