Task

Whether higher education should be funded entirely by the state is a question that divides opinion sharply. I agree that cost should never decide who studies, but I do not accept that free tuition for everyone is the best way to achieve that. The strongest argument for abolishing fees is fairness. Talented students from low-income families often rule out university before they even apply, not because they cannot cope with the work but because they cannot face the debt. A country that loses those students loses doctors and engineers it has already paid to educate through school. There is also a practical benefit: graduates tend to earn more and therefore return the investment through higher tax contributions over a working lifetime. However, universal free tuition has an awkward consequence. Because wealthier families are already far more likely to send their children to university, a blanket subsidy hands the largest benefit to those who need it least, while being funded by taxpayers who never attended. Public money is finite, and every pound spent covering the fees of a student whose parents could comfortably pay is a pound unavailable for grants, housing support, or improving weaker schools. A more effective approach would therefore be targeted rather than universal. Free tuition combined with living grants for students below a defined income threshold removes the barrier where it actually exists, while those who can contribute continue to do so. In conclusion, I agree entirely with the principle behind this proposal but not with the mechanism. The aim should be to guarantee that no capable student is priced out, and targeted funding achieves that more efficiently than making university free for everybody.