Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 24th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 3 months ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
16:30
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I beg to move that. The Committee has considered the draft lifelong learning Fee Limits Regulations 2026. The draft regulations were laid before the House on the 18th of May. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr. Stringer. This statutory instrument is the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, the Lea. It establishes a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that will begin on or after the 1st of January 2027.
The Lea is a major reform to student finance, creating a single, flexible funding system for level 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It supports people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and delivers one of our core commitments from the post 16 Education and Skills White Paper underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Auger's independent panel to the post 18 Education and Funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation in 2022 2023 under the previous government establishes the framework and these regulations are the next steps in delivering it.
A true cross-party effort. The specific regulations before us today set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the Lea. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap. Currently, this limit is £9,790 for standard full time courses. Courses or. Schools. These regulations introduce a credit based system to change. This can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap.
Currently, this limit is £9,790 for standard full time courses. These fixed annual fee limits, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, suit traditional degrees but do not work for shorter courses or modules. These regulations introduce a credit based system to change this. Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, where typically with one credit equal to around ten hours of learning. To illustrate, for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit for 2627 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits.
Dividing 9790 by 120 produces a per credit fee limit of around £82. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. This does not change overall fee caps, and most students will not see any difference in what they pay, but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study linking fees to learning volume, subject to Parliament's approval of these regulations, we intend to make and lay two further instruments needed to establish the Lea. These on student support and repayments have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and help the sector prepare.
Both instruments will be subject to negative procedure as they depend on the regulations before us today. They will only be made if these regulations are approved. To conclude, these regulations mark an important step in delivering the Lea and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits that is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance, one that better serves both young people and adult learners. This will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills, needs, and help individuals across the country access the education and training they need to succeed.
The Lea is a major reform to student finance, creating a single, flexible funding system for level 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It supports people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and delivers one of our core commitments from the post 16 Education and Skills White Paper underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Auger's independent panel to the post 18 Education and Funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation in 2022 2023 under the previous government establishes the framework and these regulations are the next steps in delivering it.
A true cross-party effort. The specific regulations before us today set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the Lea. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap. Currently, this limit is £9,790 for standard full time courses. Courses or. Schools. These regulations introduce a credit based system to change. This can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap.
Currently, this limit is £9,790 for standard full time courses. These fixed annual fee limits, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, suit traditional degrees but do not work for shorter courses or modules. These regulations introduce a credit based system to change this. Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, where typically with one credit equal to around ten hours of learning. To illustrate, for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit for 2627 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits.
Dividing 9790 by 120 produces a per credit fee limit of around £82. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. This does not change overall fee caps, and most students will not see any difference in what they pay, but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study linking fees to learning volume, subject to Parliament's approval of these regulations, we intend to make and lay two further instruments needed to establish the Lea. These on student support and repayments have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and help the sector prepare.
Both instruments will be subject to negative procedure as they depend on the regulations before us today. They will only be made if these regulations are approved. To conclude, these regulations mark an important step in delivering the Lea and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits that is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance, one that better serves both young people and adult learners. This will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills, needs, and help individuals across the country access the education and training they need to succeed.
16:34
16:34
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship chairmanship, Mr. Stringer. I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations to the committee. His Majesty's most loyal opposition will support these regulations today. Giving people the chance to access education and training flexibly throughout their working lives. Supports social mobility, personal aspiration and helps employers secure the skills they need and why we on this side of the House are proud that the previous government supported the independent August review recommendations and introduced the necessary primary legislation to create a single lifelong learning loan allowance that learners can use flexibly over their working lives to upskill or retrain.
We therefore support the principle behind the lifelong learning entitlement and the move to a credit based system for calculating calculating tuition fee limits. I would like, if I may, to push the Minister on the importance of face to face teaching time. If we really want to tackle low quality provision and ensure that lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes. We need to ensure that learners are receiving the highest possible quality teaching. Too often, students are receiving minimal face to face teaching time, limited supervised supervision, and a higher education experience that falls short of what they were promised.
Learners who enroll in the modular courses and training that will become available from January next year will reasonably expect to be able to ask their teacher a question and interact with their fellow students in person, just as we need to stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face to face teaching in return for huge debt and little prospects of employment at the end. We need to ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities are delivering the highest possible quality provision. I would therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister is doing to encourage and raise the bar for face to face teaching time across the higher education sector, whether for degree courses, modules or training.
I also have two brief questions for the minister. First, how does the Department intend to monitor the impact of the new credit based tuition fee limit system up on both providers and learners?Secondly, providers will incur familiarisation and administrative costs as these changes are implemented in light of the wider financial wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector. What support will be available to help minimise those burdens?The opposition today will support these regulations. We all hope that introducing tuition fee limits for modular learning will encourage more people to pursue higher quality training and upskilling opportunities throughout their working lives, and I look forward to the minister's response.
We therefore support the principle behind the lifelong learning entitlement and the move to a credit based system for calculating calculating tuition fee limits. I would like, if I may, to push the Minister on the importance of face to face teaching time. If we really want to tackle low quality provision and ensure that lifelong learning entitlement lives up to our hopes. We need to ensure that learners are receiving the highest possible quality teaching. Too often, students are receiving minimal face to face teaching time, limited supervised supervision, and a higher education experience that falls short of what they were promised.
Learners who enroll in the modular courses and training that will become available from January next year will reasonably expect to be able to ask their teacher a question and interact with their fellow students in person, just as we need to stop unnecessarily pushing young people into courses that offer minimal face to face teaching in return for huge debt and little prospects of employment at the end. We need to ensure that new modular courses and training opportunities are delivering the highest possible quality provision. I would therefore be grateful to hear what the Minister is doing to encourage and raise the bar for face to face teaching time across the higher education sector, whether for degree courses, modules or training.
I also have two brief questions for the minister. First, how does the Department intend to monitor the impact of the new credit based tuition fee limit system up on both providers and learners?Secondly, providers will incur familiarisation and administrative costs as these changes are implemented in light of the wider financial wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector. What support will be available to help minimise those burdens?The opposition today will support these regulations. We all hope that introducing tuition fee limits for modular learning will encourage more people to pursue higher quality training and upskilling opportunities throughout their working lives, and I look forward to the minister's response.
16:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Oh, sorry, you have to be a little quicker. In. Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. Um, the principle of credit based flexible system that lets people study in smaller chunks across a working life, rather than in one fixed block of 18, is one that the Lib Dems have long supported. And we're glad to see that direction reflected here today. Um, I'm afraid we can't endorse this instrument today for reasons that I would like to put on the record.
However. The first is substantive. This instrument and the package that it leads relies entirely on a loan based model to drive take up among exactly the cohort that it claims to serve. Adults already in work with mortgages, dependents, and a shorter working life over which to repay a loan. That looks like a reasonable proposition. At 18, citing a three year degree, looks very different to a 45 year old weighing retraining against existing financial commitments. And when this was raised directly in the other place during the passage of the enabling legislation in 2023, the government's response was essentially to defer the question to the detail.
So the instrument is that detail, and I don't think the question's really been answered. The department's own 2021 pilot of loan funded short courses, run jointly with the office for students, planned for over 100 courses and 2000 students. Only 17 courses launched, and there were 125 enrolments in total, of which just 41 students took out a loan. That's direct, real world, direct, real world test of the model. This instrument now extends across the entire post 18 system, and it didn't generate demand.
So could the minister tell us what assessment has been made of, whether the Lea risks repeating that outcome at scale and has a grant based supplement of the kind that the Liberal Democrats have proposed, been costed and considered. The second issue that we have is, is procedural. This is an affirmative instrument today, of course, but the two remaining SSIs in the package, the Student Support regulations and the repayment regulations are to be laid under the negative procedure, meaning they will become law without a vote and without the parliamentary scrutiny that a package of this complexity and long term consequence warrants.
The student support and repayment arrangements are not peripheral detail. They are the mechanisms that will determine whether the government actually has addressed that loan aversion issue, where the maintenance support is adequate, and whether repayment terms are fair. And if the system actually fails to generate the take up, the government is is predicting or hoping for. The review isn't planned until 2030 132. So that's five years after launch. So I would suggest that those two instruments should be upgraded to affirmative procedure so that we could properly scrutinise what follows and do have a number of more specific questions that I'd like to put to the Minister as well.
First, the instrument carries forward the £5,760 loan fee cap for foundation years in subjects such as humanities, business, law and social sciences. A cap set in 2023 and unchanged since every other major fee category in the instrument receives an uplift in the second tranche from August 2027. The lower fee foundation year rate does not. Foundation years are for many people without a traditional academic pathway. The entry point into higher education altogether, and that route runs disproportionately through colleges and lower tariff institutions serving the students.
The government says it wants most to reach. Could the minister confirm first that this is simply a continuation of the 2023 cap, with no independent review for the instrument?And second, that unlike every other fee category here, it does not rise in August 2027. And if the policy rationale for that is to keep fees down to protect access, which is reasonable, is there any compensating mechanism?For example, direct institutional funding or otherwise, to ensure providers can keep delivering that provision as costs rise around a frozen fee?The risk is that we are quietly trusting institutions to absorb an indefinite real terms cut in exactly the provision most likely to serve disadvantaged learners.
The second question I would like to ask is around regulation nine, which requires providers to notify the Secretary of State of the number of credits attached to a course year in advance, and to repeat that notification whenever activities change mid-year. Has the Department made any assessment of the cumulative administrative burden this places on smaller providers and fee based higher education providers who again, are precisely the institutions best placed to deliver the flexible, bite sized provision. The L is meant to enable. Third, the two tier higher and basic fee structure in this instrument imports the existing app mechanism from full time undergraduate study apps weren't designed with part time modular or older learners in mind.
So has the office for students been asked to assess whether the app commitments as currently framed, are fit for purpose in a credit based lifelong learning context?Fourth, regulation 19 ensures that courses designated for lifelong learning purposes are not treated as designated under the pre-existing 1998 act regime. So could the minister confirm that no student currently part way through a course falls between those two designation regimes and risk losing eligibility for support as a result?And fifth is a minor one, but I think worth highlighting the explanatory memorandum gives a per credit rate as £81.58, but dividing £9,790 headline figure by the 120 credits gives a recurring decimal meaning that at the stated rounding 120 credits produces £9,789.60, rather than 9700 790.
I am a mathematician by training. It is a small point, but in a system where every fee limit is derived from that per credit calculation, can the minister confirm the correct rounding convention and the providers and the Student Loans Company, of course, are working from the same figure. In closing, chair, we support the direction of this reform, and we won't stand in its way today. But the loan only design and the inadequate scrutiny afforded to the two follow on instruments are real concerns, and ones that I hope the minister can address.
Thank you Damian.
However. The first is substantive. This instrument and the package that it leads relies entirely on a loan based model to drive take up among exactly the cohort that it claims to serve. Adults already in work with mortgages, dependents, and a shorter working life over which to repay a loan. That looks like a reasonable proposition. At 18, citing a three year degree, looks very different to a 45 year old weighing retraining against existing financial commitments. And when this was raised directly in the other place during the passage of the enabling legislation in 2023, the government's response was essentially to defer the question to the detail.
So the instrument is that detail, and I don't think the question's really been answered. The department's own 2021 pilot of loan funded short courses, run jointly with the office for students, planned for over 100 courses and 2000 students. Only 17 courses launched, and there were 125 enrolments in total, of which just 41 students took out a loan. That's direct, real world, direct, real world test of the model. This instrument now extends across the entire post 18 system, and it didn't generate demand.
So could the minister tell us what assessment has been made of, whether the Lea risks repeating that outcome at scale and has a grant based supplement of the kind that the Liberal Democrats have proposed, been costed and considered. The second issue that we have is, is procedural. This is an affirmative instrument today, of course, but the two remaining SSIs in the package, the Student Support regulations and the repayment regulations are to be laid under the negative procedure, meaning they will become law without a vote and without the parliamentary scrutiny that a package of this complexity and long term consequence warrants.
The student support and repayment arrangements are not peripheral detail. They are the mechanisms that will determine whether the government actually has addressed that loan aversion issue, where the maintenance support is adequate, and whether repayment terms are fair. And if the system actually fails to generate the take up, the government is is predicting or hoping for. The review isn't planned until 2030 132. So that's five years after launch. So I would suggest that those two instruments should be upgraded to affirmative procedure so that we could properly scrutinise what follows and do have a number of more specific questions that I'd like to put to the Minister as well.
First, the instrument carries forward the £5,760 loan fee cap for foundation years in subjects such as humanities, business, law and social sciences. A cap set in 2023 and unchanged since every other major fee category in the instrument receives an uplift in the second tranche from August 2027. The lower fee foundation year rate does not. Foundation years are for many people without a traditional academic pathway. The entry point into higher education altogether, and that route runs disproportionately through colleges and lower tariff institutions serving the students.
The government says it wants most to reach. Could the minister confirm first that this is simply a continuation of the 2023 cap, with no independent review for the instrument?And second, that unlike every other fee category here, it does not rise in August 2027. And if the policy rationale for that is to keep fees down to protect access, which is reasonable, is there any compensating mechanism?For example, direct institutional funding or otherwise, to ensure providers can keep delivering that provision as costs rise around a frozen fee?The risk is that we are quietly trusting institutions to absorb an indefinite real terms cut in exactly the provision most likely to serve disadvantaged learners.
The second question I would like to ask is around regulation nine, which requires providers to notify the Secretary of State of the number of credits attached to a course year in advance, and to repeat that notification whenever activities change mid-year. Has the Department made any assessment of the cumulative administrative burden this places on smaller providers and fee based higher education providers who again, are precisely the institutions best placed to deliver the flexible, bite sized provision. The L is meant to enable. Third, the two tier higher and basic fee structure in this instrument imports the existing app mechanism from full time undergraduate study apps weren't designed with part time modular or older learners in mind.
So has the office for students been asked to assess whether the app commitments as currently framed, are fit for purpose in a credit based lifelong learning context?Fourth, regulation 19 ensures that courses designated for lifelong learning purposes are not treated as designated under the pre-existing 1998 act regime. So could the minister confirm that no student currently part way through a course falls between those two designation regimes and risk losing eligibility for support as a result?And fifth is a minor one, but I think worth highlighting the explanatory memorandum gives a per credit rate as £81.58, but dividing £9,790 headline figure by the 120 credits gives a recurring decimal meaning that at the stated rounding 120 credits produces £9,789.60, rather than 9700 790.
I am a mathematician by training. It is a small point, but in a system where every fee limit is derived from that per credit calculation, can the minister confirm the correct rounding convention and the providers and the Student Loans Company, of course, are working from the same figure. In closing, chair, we support the direction of this reform, and we won't stand in its way today. But the loan only design and the inadequate scrutiny afforded to the two follow on instruments are real concerns, and ones that I hope the minister can address.
Thank you Damian.
16:44
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, Mr. Stringer. Like everyone who's spoken, I support the principle of the lifelong learning entitlements. I welcomed it in the review of Civil Procedure, which reported while I was at the DfE, and I was very pleased. It was then brought in by my erstwhile right hon. Friends for Chichester and Harlow. It is true that higher education in this country has been too rigid for too long. The lifelong learning entitlement eliminates the do it now or do it never problem.
It makes the most of talent. It means people can move into growing sectors in the economy, or just new areas of interest, and learn in proportion to what they need to learn. And for all those reasons, it is also good for productivity. Now, this instrument today is not about the existence of lifelong learning entitlement, nor is it about the existence of the or. The level, indeed of the fee. It is just about the modularisation of that fee. But I do have a couple of short questions I'd like to put to the Minister.
First, this touches on what the honourable gentleman from Saint Neots was just saying. There is a question about debt aversion. Now, this did not happen as it was widely predicted with the Vince Cable reforms in the early 20 tens, that there would be great risk debt aversion among young people. That didn't really turn out to be true. But this is mostly about an older demographic with different sets of responsibilities that are different life stage, and what research has been done about that.
I wonder if you might say a word about the levels of enrolment in the pilots that the Department for education undertook, and what we have learned. Is there a risk of people being reluctant?There's this sort of psychological barrier. If you have a fixed lifetime maximum. What do we know about what people's reluctance might be to eat into that at a certain at a certain level, rather than leaving it intact?And is there been any research on that?Conversely, is there a risk of overselling of these modules given the terms of the loan and what may seem to be may seem to many people to be, particularly to those who are low earners, have been quite low risk in taking one out.
Are there specific risks around gaming in moving to a system where providers will be paid according to a number of credits?And as my honourable friend from Windsor rightly said, particular questions around that around online courses, overall credits and modules. Have long existed in this country. But that breaking up a course, a stretch of study or moving from one institution to another is not has not been nearly as prevalent in this country as in others in Europe through the Bologna system, or indeed in the United States.
So what is the government going to do to ensure that these amounts that we are talking about today in this instrument, that they're going to represent value for individuals with comparability of those modules, full recognition. When you come to take that module and bring it somewhere else, and the change in culture in a higher education system.
It makes the most of talent. It means people can move into growing sectors in the economy, or just new areas of interest, and learn in proportion to what they need to learn. And for all those reasons, it is also good for productivity. Now, this instrument today is not about the existence of lifelong learning entitlement, nor is it about the existence of the or. The level, indeed of the fee. It is just about the modularisation of that fee. But I do have a couple of short questions I'd like to put to the Minister.
First, this touches on what the honourable gentleman from Saint Neots was just saying. There is a question about debt aversion. Now, this did not happen as it was widely predicted with the Vince Cable reforms in the early 20 tens, that there would be great risk debt aversion among young people. That didn't really turn out to be true. But this is mostly about an older demographic with different sets of responsibilities that are different life stage, and what research has been done about that.
I wonder if you might say a word about the levels of enrolment in the pilots that the Department for education undertook, and what we have learned. Is there a risk of people being reluctant?There's this sort of psychological barrier. If you have a fixed lifetime maximum. What do we know about what people's reluctance might be to eat into that at a certain at a certain level, rather than leaving it intact?And is there been any research on that?Conversely, is there a risk of overselling of these modules given the terms of the loan and what may seem to be may seem to many people to be, particularly to those who are low earners, have been quite low risk in taking one out.
Are there specific risks around gaming in moving to a system where providers will be paid according to a number of credits?And as my honourable friend from Windsor rightly said, particular questions around that around online courses, overall credits and modules. Have long existed in this country. But that breaking up a course, a stretch of study or moving from one institution to another is not has not been nearly as prevalent in this country as in others in Europe through the Bologna system, or indeed in the United States.
So what is the government going to do to ensure that these amounts that we are talking about today in this instrument, that they're going to represent value for individuals with comparability of those modules, full recognition. When you come to take that module and bring it somewhere else, and the change in culture in a higher education system.
16:47
16:47
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
I'd like to thank members of the committee for your contributions to this debate, and I'll endeavour to answer as many of those questions as I can. Um, the, uh, the first set of questions from, um, my honourable the honourable member, um, on behalf of the opposition regarding, um, face to face teaching, uh, the system does allow credit funding flexibility. Um, so that is down to providers. Um, but I do recognise the importance of face to face teaching. Um, that is one of the reasons why set out earlier on this week, um, my noble friend the minister for skills, um, set out the intention to link the outcomes from the Teaching excellence framework.
Um scores to future access to fee increases. Uh, and it is why we have over different governments built a system which allows for competition amongst students to pick and select from a range of providers and essentially shop around for the best option. It is important that there is greater visibility on the quality, and that should come from the Teaching Excellence framework. And regarding a number of members asked questions about the various aspects of the impact of the changes. Impact assessments have been published.
Um, as part of this process, I will ask for copies of those to be sent to, members. In the coming days, and hopefully they'll answer a number of those questions. And the honourable member for centuries. Um, we've had a number of exchanges regarding um, student finance and student funding. Um, and I've got a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system which was partly designed by, by the Liberal Democrats in office, the, the government's opposition, the his Majesty's opposition also had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well.
So that's something that perhaps we can we can share. Um, I do think that the, um, the changes that we're describing here are cultural for the country in how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed, um, that allows this regulation set of regulations allow for, uh, for that. And I think it will take some time for it to, um, to bed in. So it seems reasonable to me to give a five year time horizon, um, for that, but of course there'll be a great deal of scrutiny from um Parliament and elsewhere on how that's being implemented.
I'm very happy to come back to him on foundation degree for, um, and our plans around that. Um, credit fee, uh, amounts, um, very detailed question. And I thank him for his scrutiny of the, um, the rounding, um, convention that we're using. Uh, there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a government in 20 or 30 years time as a result of that. So again, I'll write to him about why we're using a different figure to the one that he raised in this debate.
Um, and finally, the former Secretary of State for education, who was heavily involved in the inception for this and the, um, the review that led to its recommendations, again, on behavioural impacts. Very happy to share assessments that the department's made on those, uh, members of this committee will know that this is a critical step needed to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. This will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible, modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for all funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January.
These changes do not aim to overhaul the entire system, but tackle a key weakness that the current model is too rigid and focused on the traditional three year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend these regulations to the committee.
Um scores to future access to fee increases. Uh, and it is why we have over different governments built a system which allows for competition amongst students to pick and select from a range of providers and essentially shop around for the best option. It is important that there is greater visibility on the quality, and that should come from the Teaching Excellence framework. And regarding a number of members asked questions about the various aspects of the impact of the changes. Impact assessments have been published.
Um, as part of this process, I will ask for copies of those to be sent to, members. In the coming days, and hopefully they'll answer a number of those questions. And the honourable member for centuries. Um, we've had a number of exchanges regarding um, student finance and student funding. Um, and I've got a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system which was partly designed by, by the Liberal Democrats in office, the, the government's opposition, the his Majesty's opposition also had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well.
So that's something that perhaps we can we can share. Um, I do think that the, um, the changes that we're describing here are cultural for the country in how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed, um, that allows this regulation set of regulations allow for, uh, for that. And I think it will take some time for it to, um, to bed in. So it seems reasonable to me to give a five year time horizon, um, for that, but of course there'll be a great deal of scrutiny from um Parliament and elsewhere on how that's being implemented.
I'm very happy to come back to him on foundation degree for, um, and our plans around that. Um, credit fee, uh, amounts, um, very detailed question. And I thank him for his scrutiny of the, um, the rounding, um, convention that we're using. Uh, there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a government in 20 or 30 years time as a result of that. So again, I'll write to him about why we're using a different figure to the one that he raised in this debate.
Um, and finally, the former Secretary of State for education, who was heavily involved in the inception for this and the, um, the review that led to its recommendations, again, on behavioural impacts. Very happy to share assessments that the department's made on those, uh, members of this committee will know that this is a critical step needed to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. This will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible, modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for all funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January.
These changes do not aim to overhaul the entire system, but tackle a key weakness that the current model is too rigid and focused on the traditional three year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend these regulations to the committee.
16:51
16:51