Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
House of Lords · Grand Committee · 17 Mar 2026 · 13 speeches · Official Report
Considered in Grand Committee
Moved by
That the Grand Committee do consider the Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument )
My Lords, unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Smith is unwell, so I shall speak to the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. To begin with, I should take this opportunity to explain that within the Explanatory Note there was a discrepancy, in that the percentage increase for 2026-27 was stated as 2.7%, whereas it should be 2.71%, and the percentage increase for 2027-28 was stated as 2.8%, whereas it should be 2.68%. I can reassure Members that a correction slip has been arranged. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of the draft regulations. This statutory instrument, which was laid in draft on 5 February, will increase the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at approved fee cap providers in the 2026-27 and 2027-28 academic years. The SI preserves the fee limits for lower-fee foundation years at 2025-26 levels for 2026-27 and 2027-28. A separate SI making changes to maximum fee loans and student support for the 2026-27 academic year was laid before the House on 12 February. As many Members have previously acknowledged in this House, our higher education sector is one of our country’s most valuable strategic assets, one that we should feel proud of and endeavour to protect, so that future generations of students can continue to benefit from it. Our higher education sector is admired across the globe. International...
My Lords, as we heard from the Minister, the purpose of this statutory instrument is an increase in tuition fee limits, indexed to inflation. The Minister has presented this as a technical adjustment that is necessary to maintain financial stability in our higher education sector. However, we must be clear: there is nothing merely technical about increasing the cost of accessing education. This is a decision with profound consequences for students, social mobility and the very character of our universities. We recognise the genuine financial pressures facing higher education institutions. Years of frozen fees, rising costs and uncertainty over overseas students have created a challenging environment. Universities must be properly funded if they are to continue delivering world-class teaching and research. However, this instrument places the burden of that funding disproportionately on students, many of whom are already carrying significant debt and facing difficulties during this economic downturn. Our position is clear: we cannot support a policy that increases fees without wider, fairer reforms of higher education funding. Simply uprating fees by inflation risks entrenching a system that is already failing too many. It does nothing to address the long-term sustainability of the sector, nor does it tackle the inequalities faced by students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, this approach lacks ambition. Many will ask, “Where is the comprehensive strategy for higher...
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, I would like to register my interest: my daughter is a first-year student. These changes will probably not impact me because she pays and has a student loan, but, just for the record, I have a daughter who is at university and has a student loan. I welcome the opportunity to speak to these higher education regulations, which His Majesty’s loyal Opposition oppose. These regulations will once again push tuition fees higher for students. The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, quite correctly said that they will have profound consequences for students. Under this SI, the maximum fee cap will rise to £9,790 in 2027 and exceed £10,000 the following year. This comes despite repeated promises from both the Secretary of State for Education and the Prime Minister that graduates would pay less under this Government. That is simply not the case. Fees were already raised last September for the first time in eight years, and repayment thresholds have been frozen. As many noble Lords understand, this is effectively a tax rise on graduates.
Now, the Government are back again, asking students to shoulder even more of the burden. The Government believe that this is necessary to address financial pressures in the sector-and, indeed, those pressures are real. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, highlighted, the Office for Students has warned that 43% of institutions would be in deficit without intervention. But, instead of a serious plan for reform, Ministers have reached for the easy option, which is of course higher fees for students.
As it stands, too many young people are leaving university with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called “negative returns”: degrees that leave them with substantial debt but little prospect of a good job. The IFS estimates that around 30% of graduates earn so little that they never repay their loans, leaving hard-working taxpayers to cover nearly £8 billion a year. This is not a sustainable system. It is not fair to students or the taxpayer. The Government talk about value for money, but these regulations do nothing to address the underlying problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, said, this strategy lacks ambition. What exactly is the strategy? Too many young people are being funnelled into courses that do not lead to good outcomes, while high-quality apprenticeships and technical routes remain underresourced.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have been clear: we need a new deal for young people that boosts employment opportunities and reduces the debt burden on graduates. That means abolishing high interest rates on student loans, guaranteeing apprenticeship places and cutting back on unsustainable university courses that offer poor value. I would therefore be most grateful if the Minister would address the following points.
First, and crucially, how do the Government justify raising fees when they explicitly promised graduates that they would pay less? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of these increases on access, particularly for disadvantaged students-well mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed-who may already be deterred by rising debt levels? Thirdly, how do these fee rises sit alongside the Government’s stated ambition to expand higher-level technical education and apprenticeships? Finally, do Ministers now intend to uprate tuition fee caps automatically every year? If so, will they be transparent with students?
Universities are vital national institutions. They must be financially sustainable-that is clearly correct-but sustainability cannot be achieved by continually loading more debt on to young people while offering no meaningful reform in return.
My Lords, I will respond to the comments of both noble Lords together, since they raised similar, although not identical, themes. I thank them both for contributing to today’s debate. Of course, this is an exceptionally topical subject, on which there have been three OQs recently in as many weeks, so it has been much highlighted. I reiterate the importance of the SI for putting our higher education sector on a secure footing and providing greater certainty over future funding. Obviously, we have heard many views today and previously about the importance of the sector, not only for students themselves but for economic growth, world-leading research and the contribution that it makes to communities. I do not want to dwell on this, but I have to wonder at the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, given the lack of action from the previous Government, when it was clear that the higher education sector was heading into very difficult circumstances yet there was no sense of commitment. I emphasise that running through all our work on this is fairness and sustainability. There needs to be fairness to all students who apply, by making sure that access is open to all-a point which perhaps both noble Lords did not emphasise enough. To too great an extent in the past, family wealth and ability to pay were hugely determinative in whether young people went to university. This Government have made the commitment that we will make sure that quality education is open to all. On that...
Motion agreed.