Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Earl of Effingham
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
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 education? Where is the consideration of alternative funding models, maintenance support and lifelong learning?” Piecemeal adjustments such as this do not meet the scale of the challenge before us. There is a question of timing and fairness. At a moment when students and graduates are grappling with the cost of living, and when young people are questioning the value and affordability of higher education, this Committee should be wary of endorsing measures that risk further deteriorating participation.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister three questions. First, what assessment has been made of the impact of these increased fee limits on the participation of students from lower-income backgrounds? Secondly, can the Minister set out whether the Government intend to bring forward a comprehensive review of higher education funding—and, if so, when—rather than continuing with the incremental adjustments? Thirdly, what consideration has been given to increasing maintenance support alongside these fees changes to ensure that students are squeezed no further by the cost of living?
We must not accept a false choice between underfunded universities and overburdened students. By the way, I should declare my interest, as I have done on several occasions previously: my daughter is in the first year of her degree at Sheffield Hallam University, so she may well be impacted by this change.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
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.
Schools (Recording and Reporting of Seclusion and Restraint) (England) Regulations 2025
Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Earl of Effingham(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I have spent many years working with young people, particularly the most vulnerable. We on these Benches support the main aims of this statutory instrument. The safety, dignity, and well-being of our children must always come first. When a young person is secluded, it means they are kept alone or physically restrained and their movement limited. It is a serious step. These sensitive situations must be handled with great care, and it is therefore right that we improve transparency. It is also right that parents receive a written record of what has happened, as soon as possible. The department is correct in recognising that seclusion can be just as harmful as the use of force. However, although the principle behind these regulations is sound, there are concerns about how the Government have gone about introducing them.
First, we should acknowledge the confusion that occurred during the rollout. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, the original measure had to be withdrawn and replaced because the Minister accidentally signed the wrong draft. We ask our students to check their work carefully before handing it in. It is reasonable to expect the same standards here. As the committee rightly said, this kind of mistake should not have happened.
However, the bigger concern is the Government’s impact assessment. The Government estimate that the cost of recording these incidents will be between £1.6 million and £6.3 million a year, equivalent to the time of about 137 full-time teachers. Yet this estimate only includes 2,443 independent schools in England. Why? Because the Department for Education decided that state schools are not businesses and therefore left them out of the calculations. This is a serious oversight. There are more than 21,000 state schools in England—almost nine times the number of independent schools. By leaving them out, the Government have avoided confronting the true cost of this policy. In reality, the amount of teaching time required will be far greater than the figures suggest.
We should also look at the assumptions behind these figures. The department estimates that it will take two teachers between 30 and 120 seconds to record an incident and report it to a parent. Has anyone making these calculations worked in a busy school recently? The idea that two teachers can promptly and sensitively record an incident involving restraint and seclusion in one or two minutes does not reflect reality. As the committee noted, the estimated time is unrealistically low. In practice, this will mean that already overworked, overstretched teachers will have to work longer hours or spend less time on the other important tasks such as teaching and supporting their pupils.
Let me be clear: we fully support the aims of protecting students and ensuring that parents are properly informed. However, how the Government introduced these measures raises legitimate concerns. There have been unavoidable procedural mistakes and very optimistic estimates of the time involved. The impact assessment leaves out 21,000 state schools, where most of this work will take place. What practical support will be provided to teachers in state schools to help them meet these new responsibilities without the unreasonable burden on staff—who are already working extremely hard?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. We understand His Majesty’s Government’s intention. It has been some years since the last update on reasonable force policy, and there has never been a consistent and standardised measure across our schools on how seclusion and restraint are recorded and reported. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the principle of introducing such a regime, as does the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.
However, much like my noble friend Lord Lucas, we would like to probe the Government on the impact assessment and the updated statutory guidance that will come into force in April. We understand the rationale behind the need for new guidance after many years, and we appreciate that the grounds on which teachers will be legally permitted to use reasonable force will be the same. However, there are several issues on which we seek clarification.
The new guidance makes it clear that teachers must be
“adequately trained in its safe and lawful use, and in preventative strategies”.
While it stops short of implementing a national training standard, the impact assessment assumes that each school will be responsible for ensuring that training is completed in accordance with the principles of the guidance. The impact assessment attempts to outline how this will work in practice. However, our concerns resound with those of my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed.
As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted so well, the department has not accounted for schools in the state sector in its budgeting and suggests a cost of just over £350,000 to independent schools. Are the Government suggesting that there will be no cost to the state sector in implementing this change? If that is the case, can we please have clarification on how they get to their zero-cost calculation?
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Earl of Effingham(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I speak briefly to the two amendments in this group proposed by my noble friend Lady Walmsley, which I have signed.
In particular, I want to probe and press the Government on free school meals and auto-enrolment. I know from lived experience how they changed my life. Rather than running home from school to have my dinner and then running back, with very little engagement and social time with my peers, we were instead able to eat together, talk, socialise and, in my case, discover some new foods such as lemon meringue and cheese flan—I kid you not: if my secretary and PA support, Lisa, from Sheffield Council were here, she would tell your Lordships that, often, when I went to conferences on behalf of Sheffield Council, I would say, “Ask them if they do school dinners, because that’s what I would like”. We joke, but sometimes young people get a set menu and do not get a chance to taste other foods. I am of south Asian origin, and I must say that onion bhajis did not hit the mark at my school.
More seriously, the other issue that I want to challenge the Government on is the one around the pupil premium. We have all seen that, when that extra support goes in early on, particularly when it is for young people who could benefit from free school meals, the extra money empowers teachers and teaching staff in schools to decide what they need for the young person—it could be an additional teaching assistant in schools or it could be one-to-one support or after-school stuff. We are not just talking about school meals here; we are talking about things that would change the lives of young people.
I want to press the Government and I want the Minister to respond to the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about auto-enrolment. They are pushing in the right direction, but they are not quite there—and we would like, at this stage or at the next stage, to push the Government to do the right thing. I welcome the announcement that we heard around what will happen next year with more young people being able to access free school meals. With that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 189 and 191 to 193 en bloc. I thank all noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to this group thus far.
On the Thursday just past, we heard some excellent speeches in your Lordships’ House on the various issues relating to the provision of healthy, nutritious food in schools and the possibility of providing eligible children with free school meals and activities during the holidays. It is most opportune that we now have the ability constructively to challenge His Majesty’s Government around the base provision and right of those children eligible to take advantage of free school meals during term time.
Amendment 189 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to require the Secretary of State to review free school meal eligibility and pupil premium registration. It is absolutely correct that schools and local authorities should have complete and full data, and that those pupils who are eligible for free school meals actually take them up. They are clearly the pupils most likely to need free school meal provision. If His Majesty’s Government would please listen to the eminently sensible suggestions from other noble Lords last week, including those in this Committee right now, those meals will consist of healthy, nutritious food, with fruit, vegetables and low sugar levels in both food and drink. Healthy nutritious food and free school meals for every pupil eligible will hugely aid the learning and development of children in the UK.
Both Amendment 191 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, and Amendment 193 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Lister and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seek to change the system of enrolment for free school meals so that there is auto-enrolment for all eligible families. It appears that difficulties can arise during the application process and, for some, the forms can be overly complicated, but it is crucial that eligible families are able to access this provision. We understand that changing the system in this way is far from straightforward, but some local authorities are investigating how to make such a system work, and our observation to the Minister is that this is surely worth fighting for. Ensuring that all pupils who should receive free school meals do indeed receive them would, we believe, be a top priority on every Bench of your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 192, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Lister, seeks to expand free school meals to all children in state-funded primary schools. While we agree that it is vital for all students to be able to access a healthy, nutritious meal at school, we suggest that this scheme would be potentially expensive to implement and that there could be a more efficient and appropriate allocation of resources and funding within school budgets. That is not to say that providing free school lunches for all primary school children in state-funded schools is a bad idea—in a perfect world, of course, it is a great idea—but we suggest that a detailed analysis is required of how much it would cost. Is it realistic to have some contribution from parents, even if small? What impact would it have on the other elements of school life if the school and the local authority had to find the funding without additional resource from His Majesty’s Government? These are just some of the questions we seek answers for from the Minister, and we look forward to hearing His Majesty’s Government’s response.