Higher Education: Affordability and Quality

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to reflect on the future affordability and quality of higher education in this country. Her interest in HE is of long standing, and I recall her very effective role as inaugural chair of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.

I will not attempt to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness has raised, but I will address others. This House is well aware that there are real pressures on students, graduates and our universities. Funding has been eroded in real terms, costs have risen, and institutions are being asked to do more for more students with fewer resources.

However, let us be equally clear: this is not a system in decline; it is a system under strain, but one that remains one of the country’s greatest national assets. Our universities are engines of growth. They sit at the heart of the Government’s ambitions for productivity, innovation and regional development. From digital arts in Dundee to naval defence in Plymouth, from graphene in Manchester to advanced manufacturing in Sheffield, and from compound semiconductors in south Wales and the extraordinary film and television industry in Belfast, our universities create opportunity.

In all parts of the UK, universities are doing much more than educating the next generation workforce. They are at the heart of industry clusters; they drive inward investment in towns and cities all over the country; they generate jobs; they spin out companies; and they work with public sector organisations in deep partnerships. Our universities have faults and there are real problems, to which I shall return, but they should not dominate our understanding of a sector which remains, in my view, one of the best reasons to be optimistic about the future of our country. That is why it is so important that this House pays attention to the challenges and is honest about the problems. We must encourage government and the universities themselves towards renewal in the national interest.

I have been pleased to see that Universities UK recognises this need. Following on from the work of its blueprint, published two year ago, Universities UK has now embarked on a programme of work that it is calling “future universities”. It is asking how the university system needs to change and adapt to deliver what the nation needs in the next decades. As a former chief executive of Universities UK, I am pleased to say that it is not afraid of criticism but is thinking hard about how the system can respond to it.

The sector has certainly widened opportunity. Over recent years, more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have entered higher education than ever before. Sutton Trust research shows that

“around two-thirds of upward mobility among people from non-graduate families is accounted for by higher education”.

The Government are right to want to continue to expand and widen participation, because access remains unequal. Higher education transforms lives. We see it in institutions such as Teesside University, which is supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds into high-skilled employment. We see it in the work done by the Open University, whose data shows that higher education study reduces prisoner reoffending by 22%.

Value, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, is not just about earnings. We know that graduates are more likely to be in work and less likely to be unemployed. On average, they enjoy better health, and graduate parents have a positive impact on the educational outcomes of their children. A newly qualified nurse from the University of Birmingham, a teacher from the University of Cumbria and a social worker from Cardiff University may not enjoy high salaries, but surely we value them. These are the professions on which our public services depend, and they are sustained by our universities and students who choose careers that allow them to contribute to society in a variety of ways.

The Office for Students has an important job to do in safeguarding the reputation of this country for high quality. The sector should be, and is being, held to account. There is very little understanding of the processes that universities use to uphold quality, from the way they design and validate programmes to the sector-wide structures that ensure consistency. They are not understood and may not be fit for the age we live in. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, once a globally recognised mark of the trust that you can place in our universities, now has a marginal role in England, although things are different in Scotland and Wales.

No one, not even the most ardent supporter of university expansion, would argue that there should not be high-quality alternatives to university education, but improving one should not come at the expense of the other. I strongly believe that those who believe that we have gone too far in the expansion of universities are wrong. We cannot win in a global economic competition by decreasing our ambition and aspiration.

High-quality provision depends on a sustainable financial system, and here we come to the central challenge. The real value of domestic tuition fees has declined sharply over the past decade. Scottish universities received about £2,000 less per student than those in England. The gap between the cost of teaching a vet and the money an English university receives to provide an education is about £10,000 per student per year. The Westminster Government are about to hand another cut to English universities through cuts to the strategic priorities grant. Despite having made the commitment to ongoing increases in the undergraduate fee, which is a good and brave move, the financial position of the sector is getting worse due to tighter immigration requirements and decisions such as the introduction of the international levy. Institutions have responded with innovation and efficiency, but there are limits. We cannot continue to expect world-class teaching, research and student support on a diminishing resource basis.

Finally, we have to resist false choices. This is not a question of universities or skills, or of academic or technical education; we need both. Without underestimating the need for change and the improvements that need to be made, let us be confident in what we have: a system that is of high quality, is globally respected, changes lives and drives growth. At a time of global competition and economic uncertainty, to weaken our universities would not simply be short-sighted; it would be an act of profound self-harm.