Higher Education Funding

Debate between James Naish and Abtisam Mohamed

Wednesday 28th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I agree with the hon. Member. He makes an excellent point. I will come on to talking about disadvantaged students and the role that universities play.

Universities train the nurses and doctors who treat us. They train the teachers who educate our children, the engineers who build our infrastructure, and the researchers whose discoveries save lives. They support businesses, attract investment, create jobs and drive progress. In Sheffield we see that contribution every day. Sheffield Hallam University trains around 3,900 healthcare professionals and 2,800 teachers every year. In a single academic year, those healthcare students contributed more than 365,000 hours through NHS clinical placements.

Meanwhile, the University of Sheffield generates an estimated £4.82 billion for the UK economy and supports 138 start-ups and spin-outs. Its research activity contributes billions more in economic value. Although those figures are impressive, behind them lies a fracture point. There is a growing disconnect between what we ask our universities to deliver and the resources that are available. We want universities to drive growth to boost productivity, tackle regional inequality and undertake world-leading research. We want them to support the NHS, public services and local economies, yet the sector faces a financial crisis that threatens its very survival.

We have to recognise the failed funding experiments of the last 16 years and bring them to an end. I draw colleagues’ attention to the Education Committee’s comprehensive report from earlier this year, “Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students”, that identifies the real-terms cut in undergraduate tuition fees as a huge factor, though one of many, in financial instability. It is also widely recognised that the UK’s public education funding levels rank well below the OECD average of around 70%. Funding levels have fallen so far that funding direct to universities now makes up just £2 billion out of a total of £16 billion—the complete inverse of what it used to be. The majority of Government funding is spent on a bloated student loan system that is wildly out of control, while current repayment threshold freezes are punishing lower-earning graduates. Last year, the Office for Students forecast that up to 40% of higher education providers will be in deficit. Put simply, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will be aware of there being around 600 job cuts at the University of Nottingham. There have been alternative proposals from staff—120 in total—but the impact will be significant. What has been noticeable in my conversations with the university is the emphasis on commercial elements, whether that is covenants, 30 days’ access to cash or access to a revolving credit facility. Does she agree that that emphasis has gone too far? We have forgotten what the public benefit of universities is, and the Government and universities need to reflect on that.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I agree with my hon. Friend; he makes an excellent point. Nottingham is seen as a university that needs support, and I think colleagues across the sector will look to see how Nottingham is supported alongside their own universities.

As I was saying, far too many institutions are being forced into a cycle of cuts just to temporarily balance the books. Over recent months, I have spoken to university leaders, staff, representatives of trade unions including the University and College Union, students and employers. While they all have very different perspectives, they all present a common diagnosis: the current funding model for higher education does not work. That raises a fundamental question: if we recognise universities as national assets, as our rhetoric often does, why have we systematically stripped back public funding and left them to shoulder so much of the financial burden themselves?

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Debate between James Naish and Abtisam Mohamed

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In my previous work as a solicitor, I represented women who had suffered terrible violence, and people who had been pushed to the margins of society. I have seen at first hand how fragile access to justice can be, and how years of under-investment have taken a wrecking ball to our justice system. Change is clearly needed, but the reforms before us, removing the right of defendants to elect trial by jury, do not appear to be a proportionate answer to that problem. The evidence does not support the claim that the reforms will deliver the benefits suggested, with projections suggesting that the impact on the backlog may at best be modest. That raises an obvious question: if the contribution that these measures will make to reducing the backlog is uncertain, why are we being asked to make such a profound and permanent change to one of the central safeguards in our criminal justice system?

Members have spoken about a range of offences, from theft to drug-related crimes, but when people are taken to court over action to advance causes in which they believe—in the past it was the suffragettes; today it is the climate activists and Palestinian protesters—it is ordinary people, their peers, who recognise the moral imperative behind their actions to prevent greater harm. The freedoms that this system protects are not abstract. They exist precisely to safeguard individuals against the power of the state when they stand accused of a criminal offence, and that is why we should be cautious before curtailing them.

There is also a serious question about the impact that these reforms may have on black and ethnic minority defendants. The Justice Secretary’s own review, published in 2017, highlighted deep disparities and a troubling lack of trust in parts of our criminal justice system. One of his key messages was that fairness must not only exist, but must be seen to exist. Juries who are drawn from our communities play an important role in public confidence. Reducing access to jury trial could risk further eroding trust among certain communities who already feel disproportionately affected by the criminal justice system. It is therefore essential that if these reforms proceed, their impact on black and ethnic minority defendants is specifically examined, transparently and rigorously.

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the backlog crisis. The courts must function efficiently, and the victims should not have to wait years for justice. However, if the purpose of these reforms is to address the backlog, I suggest that we should understand why they are being introduced as a permanent alteration to our justice system, rather than a time-limited measure.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I will support the Government tonight, because it is clear that decisive action is needed to tackle the backlog that so many Members have described, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government are genuinely confident about the package of reforms that they are presenting, it would be fair and proportionate to add a review clause or the equivalent to ensure that we are clear about whether we actually need some of these measure?

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I do agree. The logical approach would be to treat this as a time-limited measure—or the Justice Secretary should consider a mandatory time-bound review, assessing the impact of these changes not only on the backlog but on trial outcomes, on equality before the law, on public confidence, and specifically on black and ethnic minority defendants. All those matters must be included in a review if it is to be robust. The review must not only allow Parliament to examine the evidence but, if the reforms fail to deliver the benefits claimed or produce serious unintended consequences, allow us to revisit and, if necessary, reverse them. That would be a constructive and responsible approach.

Efficiency in the courts is important, but justice is equally important. I say to the Justice Secretary that if we are to take a step as serious as limiting the right to jury trial, at the very least Parliament should have the right to rigorous scrutiny, a meaningful review, and the clear possibility of reversal if this policy does not work.