Higher Education: Affordability and Quality

Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this important debate. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for the points they have raised, which are clearly important to many of us who are interested in the higher education sector. It comes at a crucial moment for higher education in England. I declare an interest, in that my daughter has just finished her first year at Sheffield Hallam University.

I note that a number of challenges are facing the university sector: mounting financial pressures, as we heard from many noble Lords; declining affordability for students, particularly given the cost of living crisis; a growing concern about quality and value for money; and the need to ensure that world-class universities remain engines of opportunity, innovation and economic growth.

This debate comes at a pivotal moment, as I said, because only this week, during Oral Questions, I asked the Government what long-term strategy they have to address the growing financial crisis facing our universities. I did so following a meeting that I attended in my home city of Sheffield, where students and staff from the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University came together to describe first hand the consequences of years of financial uncertainty, redundancies, course closures and growing anxiety about the future of institutions that are central to our city’s economy and identity.

For us, the starting point is straightforward. Higher education is not merely a private benefit; it is a public good. Universities educate the teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs upon whom our society depends. They drive research, regenerate communities and contribute billions to our economy. Any debate about affordability must therefore consider the financial burdens on students and the long-term sustainability of the institutions themselves. The current system is failing on both counts.

Students continue to face cost of living challenges and, while maintenance support has increased in recent years, it has not kept up with the real increases in living costs experienced during inflation surges, leaving many students working long hours simply to make ends meet. The House of Lords Library notes that term-time employment has become the norm for many students, not as a lifestyle choice but as a financial necessity. Education should expand horizons, not force students to choose between attending lectures and paying rent.

We consistently argue that maintenance support should reflect the real cost of living. We welcome the principle of reintroducing maintenance grants, but limiting them to selected subjects risks creating a two-tier system that values some students more than others. Financial hardship does not discriminate by degree subject. If we are serious about widening participation, support must be based primarily on need and not on Whitehall’s judgment about which courses deserve assistance.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the financial realities facing our universities. After years in which tuition fees failed to keep pace with inflation, many institutions are under severe financial strain, similar to what I described is happening in Sheffield. Some have become increasingly dependent on international students, as we heard from many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Isaac. That income simply subsidises domestic teaching and research, a model that is neither stable nor sustainable.

However, solving one problem by simply transferring ever-greater costs on to students is not the solution. We need a funding settlement that is honest and sustainable, and commands public confidence. That means the Government accepting their responsibility to invest properly in higher education as a national asset, rather than expecting universities or graduates alone to carry the burden.

Affordability must be matched by quality. Students and taxpayers alike deserve confidence that every course will offer high-quality teaching, strong student support and meaningful outcomes. Where provision consistently falls below acceptable standards regulators should intervene, but regulation must be intelligent and proportionate. We should be wary of reducing educational value to a narrow set of earnings metrics. A graduate entering social work, teaching, nursing or the creative industries may never command the salaries of those entering investment banking, yet these contributions to our society are no less valuable. Universities should certainly be accountable, but they should not be judged solely by graduate pay packets.

We have long championed diversity in the higher education sector. Universities succeed because they pursue different missions. Research-intensive institutions, specialist providers, civic universities and teaching-focused institutions all have vital roles. Regulation should encourage excellence in all its forms, rather than forcing every institution into the same mould.

We strongly support greater flexibility in lifelong learning. The proposed lifelong learning entitlement offers significant opportunities for adults to retrain, upskill and return to education throughout their working lives. As technology transforms our economies, as we have heard from many noble Lords, learning cannot stop at the age of 21, but flexibility will succeed only if employers, further education colleges and universities work together to create genuine accessible pathways.

Finally, we must remember that widening participation is about far more than admissions statistics. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds must not only enter university but thrive once they are there. They require adequate maintenance support, affordable housing, high-quality mental health services and effective career guidance in inclusive learning environments.

The measure of success is not simply who gets through the university gates, but who graduates, succeeds and fulfils their potential. Britain’s universities remain among our greatest national strengths; they deserve a funding system that is sustainable. Students deserve a funding system that is fair, and our country deserves a higher education system that combines excellence with opportunity. We believe that these goals are not competing ambitions but mutually reinforce one another. By investing in students, supporting universities and maintaining higher standards, we can ensure that higher education remains both affordable and world-leading for generations to come. I hope your Lordships’ House agree with the principles I have outlined.