The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Graham Stringer

† Bloore, Chris (Redditch) (Lab)

† Buckley, Julia (Shrewsbury) (Lab)

† Dewhirst, Charlie (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

† Evans, Chris (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)

† Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Fox, Sir Ashley (Bridgwater) (Con)

† Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con)

† MacAlister, Josh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education)

Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Onn, Melanie (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)

† Rankin, Jack (Windsor) (Con)

† Sabine, Anna (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)

† Sollom, Ian (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)

† Stone, Will (Swindon North) (Lab)

† Strickland, Alan (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)

† Yang, Yuan (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)

Emma Elson, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 24 June 2026

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

Before I call the Minister to move the motion, any hon. Member or official who wishes to take off their jacket has my permission to do so.

I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 May. This statutory instrument is the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, or LLE, which establishes a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027. The LLE is a major reform to student finance, creating a single flexible funding system for levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It will support people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and will deliver one of the core commitments in our post-16 education and skills White Paper, underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar’s independent panel to the post-18 education and funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation enacted in 2022 and 2023 by the previous Government established the framework, and these regulations are the next step in delivering it—this is a true cross-party effort. The regulations set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the LLE. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if it is subject to a fee cap. Currently, that limit is £9,790 for standard full-time courses. Those fixed annual fee limits suit traditional degrees, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, but do not work for shorter courses or modules. The regulations introduce a credit-based system to change that. Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, with one credit typically equivalent to around 10 hours of learning. To illustrate that, the standard fee limit for a typical higher education course in the 2026-27 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits. Dividing £9,790 by 120 produces a per-credit fee limit of around £82. The regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. That does not change overall fee caps—most students will not see any difference in what they pay—but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study, linking fees to learning volume. Subject to Parliament’s approval of the regulations, we intend to lay two further instruments needed to establish the LLE. Those instruments, on student support and repayments, have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and to help the sector prepare. Both will be subject to the negative procedure. As they depend on the regulations before the Committee, they will be made only if these regulations are approved. The regulations mark an important step in delivering the LLE and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits, which is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance that better serves young people and adult learners. That will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills needs, and help individuals across the country to access the education and training that they need to succeed.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition will support the regulations. Giving people the chance to access education and training flexibly throughout their working lives supports social mobility and personal aspiration, and helps employers to secure the skills that they need. That is why we Conservatives are proud that the previous Government supported the independent Augar review recommendations and introduced the primary legislation necessary to create a single lifelong learning loan allowance that learners can use to upskill and retrain flexibly over their working lives. We therefore support the principle behind the lifelong learning entitlement and the move to a credit-based system for calculating tuition fee limits. I would like to press the Minister on the importance of face-to-face teaching time. If we want to tackle low-quality provision and ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes, we must ensure that learners receive the highest-quality teaching possible. Too often, students receive limited face-to-face teaching time, limited supervision and a higher education experience that falls short of what they were promised. Learners who enrol in the modular courses and training that will become available from January next year will reasonably expect to be able to ask their teacher a question, and to interact with their fellow students, in person. Just as we must stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face-to-face teaching, in return for huge debt and little prospect of employment at the end, we must ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities deliver the highest-quality provision possible. I would therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister is doing to encourage and raise the bar for face-to-face teaching time across the higher education sector, whether for degree courses, modules or training. I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, how does the Department intend to monitor the impact of the new credit-based tuition fee limit system on providers and on learners? Secondly, given that providers will occur familiarisation and administrative costs as the changes are implemented, and in the light of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector, what support will be available to help minimise those burdens? The Opposition support the regulations. We all hope that introducing tuition fee limits for modular learning will encourage more people to pursue higher-quality training and upskilling opportunities throughout their working lives. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. The Lib Dems have long supported the principle of a flexible credit-based system that lets people study in smaller chunks across their working lives, rather than in one fixed block at 18 years old. We are glad to see that direction reflected here today. I am afraid we cannot endorse the instrument, however, for reasons that I will put on the record. The first reason is substantive. The instrument, and the package that it leads, relies entirely on a loan-based model to drive take-up among exactly the cohort it claims to serve—adults who are already in work, with mortgages, dependants and a shorter working life over which to repay any loan. A loan that looks like a reasonable proposition for an 18-year-old starting a three-year degree looks very different to a 45-year-old weighing up retraining against existing financial commitments. When that issue was raised directly in the other place during the passage of the enabling legislation in 2023, the Government’s response was essentially to defer the question to the detail. The instrument is that detail, but the question has not really been answered. The Department’s 2021 pilot of loan-funded short courses, run jointly with the Office for Students, planned for more than 100 courses and 2,000 students, but only 17 courses launched and 125 students enrolled, of whom just 41 took out a loan. That direct, real-world test of the model that this instrument now extends across the entire post-18 system did not generate demand. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of whether the LLE risks repeating that outcome at scale? Has a grant-based supplement, of the kind that the Liberal Democrats have proposed, been costed and considered? The second reason is procedural. This instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, but the two remaining SIs in the package—the student support regulations and the repayment regulations—will be laid under the negative procedure, meaning that they will become law without a vote and without the parliamentary scrutiny warranted by a package of this complexity and long-term consequence. The student support and repayment arrangements are not peripheral details. They are the mechanisms that will determine whether the Government have addressed that loan-aversion issue, whether maintenance support is adequate and whether repayment terms are fair. What if the fee system fails to generate the take-up that the Government are predicting or hoping for? The review is not planned until 2031-32, five years after launch. I suggest that those two instruments should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure so that we can properly scrutinise what follows. I have a number of more specific questions for the Minister. First, the instrument carries forward the £5,760 lower fee cap for foundation years in subjects such as humanities, business, law and social sciences. That cap was set in 2023 and is unchanged since. Every other major fee category in the instrument receives an uplift in the second tranche, from August 2027. The lower fee foundation year rate does not. For many people without a traditional academic pathway, foundation years are the entry point into higher education. That route runs disproportionally through colleges and lower-tariff institutions, serving the students whom the Government say they most want to reach. Can the Minister confirm that this is simply a continuation of the 2023 cap with no independent review for the instrument, and that, unlike every other fee category mentioned, it does not rise in August 2027? If the policy rationale for that is to keep fees down to protect access, which is reasonable, is there any compensating mechanism—direct institutional funding, for example—to ensure that providers can keep delivering that provision as costs rise around a frozen fee? The risk is that we are quietly trusting institutions to absorb an indefinite real-terms cut in exactly the provision that is most likely to serve disadvantaged learners. Regulation 9 requires providers to notify in advance the Secretary of State of the number of credits attached to a course year, and to repeat that notification whenever activities change mid-year. Has the Department made any assessment of the cumulative administrative burden that that will place on smaller providers and FE-based higher education providers, which, again, are precisely the institutions best placed to deliver the flexible, bite-sized provision that the LLE is meant to enable? The two-tier higher and basic fee structure in the instrument imports the existing access and participation plan mechanism from full-time undergraduate study. APPs were not designed with part-time modular or older learners in mind. Has the Office for Students been asked to assess whether APP commitments, as currently framed, are fit for purpose in a credit-based lifelong learning context? Regulation 19 ensures that courses designated for lifelong learning purposes are not treated as designated under the pre-existing Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 regime. Can the Minister confirm that no student currently part way through a course will risk falling between those two designation regimes and losing eligibility for support as a result? On a minor point that is still worth highlighting, the explanatory memorandum states that the per-credit rate is £81.58, but dividing the £9,790 headline figure by 120 credits gives a recurring decimal, meaning that, at the stated rounding, 120 credits produces £9,789.60, rather than £9,790.

We all knew that!

Well, I am a mathematician by trade. It is a small point, but every fee limit in the system is derived from that per-credit calculation, so will the Minister confirm the correct rounding convention, and that the providers and the Student Loans Company are working from the same figure? We support the direction of this reform, and will not stand in its way today, but the loan-only design and the inadequate scrutiny afforded to the two follow-on instruments are real concerns. I hope that the Minister will address them.

Like everyone who has spoken, I support the principle of the lifelong learning entitlement. I welcomed it in Sir Philip Augar’s review, which reported while I was at the Department for Education. I was pleased that it was brought in by my erstwhile right hon. Friends for Chichester and Harlow. It is true that higher education in this country has been too rigid for too long. The lifelong learning entitlement eliminates the “do it now or do it never” problem. It makes the most of talent, and it means that people can move into growing sectors in the economy, or just new areas of interest, and learn what they need to learn. For all those reasons, it is also good for productivity. This statutory instrument is not about the existence of the lifelong learning entitlement, nor is it about the existence—or the level—of the fee; it is just about the modularisation of that fee. I have a couple of short questions to put to the Minister. The first touches on what the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire was just saying: there is a question of debt aversion. That did not happen, as was widely predicted, after the Vince Cable reforms in the early 2010s—the great risk of debt aversion among young people did not turn out to be true. However, this is mostly about an older demographic, with different sets of responsibilities, at a different life stage. What research has been done about that? I wonder whether the Minister might say a word about the levels of enrolment in the pilots that the Department for Education undertook, and what we have learned. Is there a risk of people being reluctant? There is a psychological barrier if there is a fixed lifetime maximum. What do we know about people’s possible reluctance to eat into that at a certain level, rather than leaving it intact? Has there been any research on that? Conversely, is there a risk of overselling the modules, given the terms of the loan and what may seem to many people—low earners in particular—quite low risk in taking one out? Are there specific risks of gaming from moving to a system in which providers will be paid according to a number of credits? As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor rightly said, there are particular questions around that for online courses. Credits and modules have long existed in this country, but breaking up a course or stretch of study, or moving from one institution to another, has not been nearly as prevalent in this country as in others, whether in Europe through the Bologna system or indeed the United States. What will the Government do to ensure that the amounts that are involved in this statutory instrument will represent value for individuals, with comparability of the modules, full recognition when that module is taken somewhere else, and a culture change in our higher education system?

I thank Committee members for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can. The first set of questions came from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Windsor, about face-to-face teaching. The system allows for credit funding flexibility, which is down to providers, but I recognise the importance of face-to-face teaching. That is one of the reasons why, earlier this week, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills set out the intention to link the outcomes of the teaching excellence framework scores to future access to fee increases. That is why, over different Governments, we have built a system that allows competition so that students can pick and select from a range of providers and, in essence, shop around for the best option. Greater visibility of the quality is important, and that should come from the teaching excellence framework. A number of Members asked about the various impacts of the changes. Impact assessments have been published as part of this process. I will ask for copies of them to be sent to Members in the coming days. I hope that they will answer a number of questions. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I have had several exchanges about student finance and student funding. I have a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system that was partly designed by them in office. His Majesty’s Opposition had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well, so perhaps that is something that we can share. The changes described are cultural for the country, affecting how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed. The regulations allow for that. I think they will take some time to bed in, so it seems reasonable to give a five-year time horizon, but of course there will be a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament and elsewhere on their implementation. I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire on foundation degree fees and our plans for them. The question on credit fee amounts was very detailed, and I thank him for his scrutiny of the rounding convention that we are using—there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a Government in 20 or 30 years’ time as a result of it. Again, I will write to him about why we are using a different figure from the one that he mentioned. Finally, the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, was heavily involved in the inception of this measure and the review that led to its recommendation. Again, I am happy to share the Department’s assessments of behavioural impacts. The Committee will know that this SI is a critical step towards delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. It will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for LLE-funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January. The changes aim not to overhaul the entire system but to tackle a key weakness in the current model, which is too rigid and focused on the traditional three-year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

Committee rose.