Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

At present, fee limits are set as a fixed cash amount for each academic year, regardless of how much learning that year contains. That works for a traditional three-year degree but it cannot price a single module or a short course effectively. These regulations replace this with a credit-based approach. Credits are units widely used to signify the amount of learning a student would ordinarily be expected to undertake to complete a particular course or part of a course. Across the further and higher education sectors, definitions are consistent. One credit equals about 10 hours of student learning, so to give a straightforward example for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit amount for the academic year 2026-27 is £9,790 and a standard full-time year contains 120 credits. The LLE per-credit fee limit as described by these regulations represents that £9,790 divided by 120. The result is therefore a tuition fee limit of close to £82 per credit, or £81.58 to be precise. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course.

The new system established by these regulations does not change the overall tuition fee limit, as debated by the House earlier this year. The vast majority of students will see no change in the fees they are charged. What changes is the application of the tuition fee limits that have been set. For the first time, fee limits will apply fairly to short periods of study, as well as to traditional longer courses; that is because they will be based on the amount of learning in a course or module. Students will therefore know that their tuition fees reflect the volume of learning they are undertaking. The regulations provide protection for students and taxpayers. There are limits on the credits for which a provider can charge: 360 credits for a typical three-year degree and 180 credits within any one year.

Subject to Parliament’s approval of these regulations, it is my intention to make and lay two further instruments, which are necessary to establish the LLE. The two instruments, on student support and on repayments, have already been published in draft so that the House has full sight of the suite of legislation proposed and the sector can make appropriate preparations for the introduction of the LLE system. These two instruments will both be subject to the negative procedure. Given their dependency on the regulations before us today, they will be made only if both Houses approve these regulations.

These regulations represent a significant step in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. They establish the fee limit system needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance—one that works better for young people and adults alike. By doing so, they will help learners study in a way that fits their lives, help providers respond to changing skills needs and support people across the country to access the education and training they need to succeed. I beg to move.

Secondly, what is the Government’s thinking on eligibility for funding for courses not drawn from existing qualifications? The stipulations in the policy are very clear at the moment: funding will be made available only for modules that are drawn from existing qualifications. I have said on a few occasions that this risks us stifling innovation in what is on offer, meaning that we, in effect, provide access only to more of the same but in smaller pieces. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how we can meet demand from employers for shorter, more agile programmes that respond to rapidly changing labour market needs but do not necessarily fit within traditional qualification structures. If lifelong learning is genuinely to become a normal feature of working life, it seems likely that the funding system will ultimately need to accommodate that greater flexibility.

In her remarks, the Minister referred to two further regulations that are going to be laid, one of which is on student support. As she thinks about the future direction of this policy area, could she say whether the Government might soften their stance on student support for online, distance-learning qualifications? It stands to reason—and this is the whole intent of the Government’s policy—that the smaller the unit of study, the more likely it is to be studied at distance and online, given that students will not want to incur the frictional costs of upping sticks and moving to study at another institution in person. None the less, they will still need to incur maintenance costs, which the current regulations do not provide for. As we move into a more modular landscape, it is likely that we will need to rethink that, so I would like to understand the Government’s intentions in that respect.

Finally, what does success look like in this policy area? How are we measuring it? What level of adult participation do the Government want this entitlement to achieve over the next three to five years in shifting the market share away from this category-killing three-year bachelor’s degree towards other more flexible forms of study? Where does the Minister want us to end up in changing the way higher education is consumed and delivered over a horizon of three to five years and by what measures will the Government judge whether further reform is needed? All those points are not to detract from the importance of these regulations: they are a really important beginning. I wish the Minister every success in getting them through Parliament.

There are also legitimate concerns from universities and colleges about the implementation. Higher education institutions are already operating under severe financial pressure. They are being asked to redesign courses, develop modular provision and invest in new admin systems, while maintaining significant financial uncertainty. If the Government want us to embrace these reforms, they must ensure that the funding and regulatory framework give institutions the confidence to innovate rather than simply observe additional costs.

The Lib Dems believe that lifelong learning should also be driven by the needs of the learner and the employer together. Skills shortages continue across sectors, including engineering, construction, digital industries, health and education. The lifelong learning entitlement should help adults to access high-quality qualifications that respond to those workforce needs, while also giving individuals the freedom to pursue learning and personal development and career progression.

While we welcome the direction of travel represented by these regulations, they cannot be viewed in isolation. Success will depend on a wider package of student support, employer engagement, higher-quality careers advice and sustainable funding for universities and further education colleges. Therefore, I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, what assessment has been made of the likely impact of these regulations on participation by mature and disadvantaged learners? Secondly, what support will be available to help providers to implement modular delivery successfully? Finally, how will the Government ensure that the lifelong learning entitlement genuinely widens participation, rather than simply changing the way the fees are calculated?

As I said, the Lib Dems support the ambitions of making learning available throughout life, but ambitions must be matched by opportunity, affordability and proper investment. Only then will this important reform deliver what it promises.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an integral part in the Augar review. The previous Conservative Government welcomed the recommendations of that independent review into post-18 education and funding and introduced the primary legislation that makes a lifelong learning entitlement possible. We are therefore grateful that the Government have now taken the steps to make this a reality.

Largely underpinning these regulations is the concept of proportionality. Using credits as the standard unit of learning time is the best way in which to achieve this uniformly. Limiting the number of credits that can be charged per course time and per activity is a start to ensuring that courses are rightly valued. But proportionality of credits does not necessarily equal proportionality of quality and we have many times highlighted the extent of less valuable courses currently within the market. This remains a concern.

It would be fair and reasonable to ask how the Government will ensure that the quality of education matches the cost of the degree past simply looking at credit numbers. This is of particular concern with part-time courses. Flexibility of education is of course a good thing, but it cannot be used to justify students enrolling in modular courses and not having face-to-face time with a teacher. How does the Minister propose to ensure that the highest possible in-person education is taking place face to face, involving engaging with each other and truly gaining from the experience?

In a similar line of thought to that of my noble friend Lord Johnson, we ask more generally what the feedback mechanisms are for this measure. How will its implementation and success be monitored both for providers and students, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed? It was surprising that the Minister in the other place did not answer this question. How will the providers who will naturally incur an administrative cost in implementing this new system be supported in the transition?

However, this does not necessarily mean that the only way to be upskilled in AI, for example, would be through the LLE. It depends on how you want to learn. As part of our reform of the growth and skills levy, we have introduced short courses that can be funded through the levy for those who are employed, and AI is one of the first areas in which we have developed those. So it may be appropriate for employers to enable those in employment to take one of those short courses using the growth and skills levy. If you want to do something more fundamental, which requires a course of at least 30 credits, the lifelong learning entitlement would be more appropriate to use, so that you can go back to a broader higher education course.

On the point about scale, we have been careful to introduce the LLE incrementally, in a way that recognises some of the risks that we have seen in the higher education system recently of uncontrolled expansion and a failure to focus on the quality of what is being offered. That is why we have taken a relatively tightly controlled approach to the first providers of modular courses from January 2027. They will not simply, as I think was suggested, be more of the same but chunked up a bit. For example, the opportunity for further education to provide these courses and for students to be funded through the LLE is quite a significant change and an important development. But we are being careful about the way that we introduce these courses. We will want to expand this in the future, although I am not in a position to say when, at this point. Nevertheless, this is the start of something that will be more radical.

The noble Lord also raised the levels at which the LLE will fund. It is right that the LLE is currently focused on modular and flexible learning at levels 4 to 6, where the greatest need for retraining and upskilling has been identified. The postgraduate master’s loan and postgraduate doctoral loan remain available to help with course fees and living costs, and they provide flexibility to the student.