An increase in university tuition fees in England is expected to be announced for the first time in more than seven years, Sky News understands.
Fees have been frozen at an annual level of £9,250 since the 2017/18 academic year, but the government is expected to lift the cap so they can rise in line with inflation.
That will increase the cost of tuition to £9,500 in October 2025 and £10,500 by 2029.
It’s expected that Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson will confirm the move in a House of Commons statement later today.
Any such announcement is likely to provoke a strong backlash, given Sir Keir Starmer had pledged to abolish tuition fees when he stood to be Labour leader in 2020.
The prime minister rowed back on that promise early last year, saying it was no longer affordable because of the “different financial situation” the country was in, and he was choosing to prioritise the NHS.
However at the time he said Labour would set out a “fairer solution” for students if it won the election.
Image: Bridget Phillipson. Pic: Reuters
The change comes as universities have been dealing with a funding crisis, largely driven by a huge drop in overseas students.
Advertisement
Rules brought in by Rishi Sunak’s government made it harder for international students, who pay higher fees than British ones, to bring their families with them to the UK.
Universities have been pleading for more investment, but Ms Phillipson said recently that institutes should seek to manage their own budgets before hoping for a bailout from the taxpayer.
When she was in opposition, she also touted the idea of reducing the monthly repayments “for every single graduate” by changing how the loan is paid back.
Writing in The Times in June 2023 she had said: “Reworking the present system gives scope for a month-on-month tax cut for graduates, putting money back in people’s pockets when they most need it.”
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
However the idea didn’t make it into Labour’s 2024 manifesto, which only says that “the current higher education funding settlement does not work for the taxpayer, universities, staff, or students”.
It adds: “Labour will act to create a secure future for higher education and the opportunities it creates across the UK.”
Independent MP Zara Sultana, who lost the Labour whip after rebelling over the two-child benefit cap, called the latest development “wrong”.
“It’s time to abolish tuition fees and cancel student debt because education is a public good, not a commodity,” she posted on X.
‘Maintenance loans bigger issue’
X
This content is provided by X, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable X cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to X cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow X cookies for this session only.
However, money saving expert Martin Lewis said higher fees won’t necessarily lead to students facing higher yearly repayments, as that “solely depends on what you earn not on what you borrow”.
In a thread on X he said a more damaging policy was the Tories’ decision last year to drop the salary threshold at which repayments must be made – from £27,000 to £25,000 – and increase the time to clear the loan before it is written off, from 30 to 40 years.
He said: “Increasing tuition fees will only see those who clear the loan in full over the 40yrs pay more. That is generally mid-high to higher earning university leavers only, so the cost of increasing them will generally be born by the more affluent.”
He added that a bigger problem for students is the fact maintenance loans “aren’t big enough” and “have not kept pace with inflation”.
University fees of £1,000 per year were first introduced by the Labour government in 1998, going up to £3,000 in 2006.
The Coalition government then tripled the amount to £9,000 in 2012, sparking a huge backlash, particularly against the Lib Dems who had vowed to scrap fees in the 2010 general election campaign.
Since then there have been further changes to student finance such as the abolition of maintenance grants and NHS bursaries, moving student support increasingly away from non-repayable grants and towards loans.
The long-awaited Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY Act, is moving closer to law, with a Senate markup expected in January, says White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar David Sacks.
Sacks posted to X on Thursday that Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman had confirmed that the bipartisan crypto bill will be shaped up by the Senate next month.
”We are closer than ever to passing the landmark crypto market structure legislation that President Trump has called for. We look forward to finishing the job in January!”
The CLARITY Act would define crypto securities and commodities and clarify the roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and other financial regulators.
Backers of the bill say it will reduce regulatory uncertainty for crypto firms by establishing clearer compliance pathways and encourage innovation while strengthening investor protections.
Movement of the CLARITY Act has been slower than expected, with Senator Cynthia Lummis having predicted in September that the CLARITY Act would get to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature before the end of 2025.
The delays have largely been attributed to the record 43-day US government shutdown across October and November. However, US regulators met with executives from Coinbase, Ripple, Circle and others during that time to ensure the momentum of the bill didn’t stall.
Sacks’ post had confirmed earlier reports that the Senate markup would be pushed into the new year.
The House passed the CLARITY Act in July, and the Senate markup will debate and potentially amend the bill before it’s sent to the full chamber for a vote.
Scott will have to tackle passing the bill with a supermajority of votes to avoid it being forever stalled and essentially abandoned.
If the Senate passes it with amendments, the bill will return to the House for final approval before reaching Trump’s desk.
Representatives of the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), a nonprofit Bitcoin advocacy organization, warned that US lawmakers have not included a de minimis tax exemption for Bitcoin transactions below a certain threshold.
“De Minimis tax legislation may be limited to only stablecoins, leaving everyday Bitcoin transactions without an exemption,” Conner Brown, BPI’s head of strategy, said on X, adding that the decision to exclude Bitcoin (BTC) is a “severe mistake.”
In July, Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis introduced a bill proposing a de minimis tax exemption for crypto transactions of $300 or less, with a $5,000 annual limit on tax-free transactions and sales.
The bill proposal also included tax exemptions for digital assets used for charitable donations and tax deferment for crypto earned through mining proof-of-work (PoW) protocols or staking to secure blockchain networks.
Allowing a tax exemption for small Bitcoin transactions would increase its use as a medium of exchange rather than just as a store of value asset, allowing a new financial system built on a Bitcoin standard, BTC advocates say.
The discussion around de minimis tax exemptions has also raised questions about whether such relief should apply to stablecoins, which are designed to maintain a stable value.
“Why would you even need a De Minimis tax exemption for stablecoins,” Marty Bent, founder of media company Truth for The Commoner (TFTC), wrote on X. “They don’t change in value. This is nonsensical.”
Cointelegraph reached out to BPI about the proposed legislation, but had not received a response at time of publication.
Bitcoin is gaining value, but it isn’t being used as peer-to-peer electronic cash
The Bitcoin white paper, authored by its pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto in 2019, describes Bitcoin as a “peer-to-peer electronic cash system.”
However, relatively high transaction fees, average block times of about 10 minutes, and capital gains taxes on Bitcoin stifle BTC’s use as a payment method for goods and services.
The Bitcoin Lightning Network is a second-layer protocol designed for BTC payments, which works by locking a specific amount of BTC in a payment channel between two or more people.
Users connected through a payment channel can conduct multiple transactions offchain, with only the final net balance recorded on the Bitcoin ledger for settlement once the channel is closed.
This makes Bitcoin transactions faster and cheaper, as the users in the payment channel do not have to wait for new blocks to be mined or pay a network fee for each transaction between parties in the channel.
A US court is once again being asked to weigh in on maximal extractable value practices after a judge allowed new evidence to be added to a class-action lawsuit tied to a memecoin platform.
The judge granted a motion to amend and refile to include new evidence a class-action lawsuit against memecoin launch platform Pump.fun, the maximal extractable value (MEV) infrastructure company Jito Labs, the Solana Foundation, which is the nonprofit organization behind the Solana ecosystem, and others.
The motion said over 5,000 pieces of evidence in the form of internal chat logs were submitted by a “confidential informant” in September that were previously unavailable. The filing said:
“Plaintiffs assert that the logs contain contemporaneous discussions among Pump.fun, Solana Labs, Jito Labs, and others concerning the alleged scheme, and that they materially clarify the enterprise’s management, coordination, and communications.”
The first page of the motion to amend the case to include new evidence, which was granted. Source: Burwick Law
Maximal extractable value is a technique that involves reordering transactions within a block to maximize profit for MEV arbitrageurs and validators.
The plaintiffs allege that Pump.fun used MEV techniques to give insiders preferential access to new tokens at a low value, which were then pumped and dumped onto retail participants, who were used as exit liquidity by insiders.
Cointelegraph reached out to Burwick Law, the legal firm representing the plaintiffs, as well as Pump.fun, Jito Labs and the Solana Foundation, but did not receive any responses by the time of publication.
The allegations in the original lawsuit filing. Source: Burwick Law
The lawsuit could set a precedent for MEV cases in the United States, as the ethics of the practice continue to be debated within the crypto industry and legal bodies struggle to define proper regulations about the highly technical subject.
Anton and James Peraire-Bueno, the brothers accused of using a MEV trading bot to make millions of dollars in profit, went to trial in November in the US.
Prosecutors argued that the brothers tricked victims out of their funds, but defense attorneys said that they were executing a legitimate trading strategy and did not do anything illegal.
The jury struggled to reach a verdict in the case, and several jurors requested additional information to clarify the complexities surrounding the technical specifics of blockchain technology.
The case ended in a mistrial after the jury was deadlocked and failed to reach a verdict, highlighting the complexity of adjudicating legal disputes surrounding the application of nascent financial technology.