ߣߣƵ

Universities eye levy U-turn under Burnham leadership

Sector pushes to reopen negotiations on controversial tax, while some call for the income raised to be reinvested in universities

Published on
July 3, 2026
Last updated
July 3, 2026
Andy Burnham looking over his shoulder as he jogs outside his home in Greater Manchester, Britain, 18 May, 2026. To illustrate whether universities could achieve a levy U-turn under a Burnham leadership.
Source: Phil Noble/Reuters

English universities are calling on Andy Burnham to reverse the incoming international student levy, in the hope that his past support for the sector will mean he offers it a more sympathetic ear.

The government plans to charge universities £925 per international student they enrol from August 2028 onwards, a move that is widely unpopular among institutions, which say it will add to their financial woes.

Vice-chancellors are quietly hopeful that lobbying a new prime minister, and a likely new ministerial team in the Department for Education, can secure more concessions, or even see the policy scrapped entirely. While the government has committed publicly to the levy, it has not been legislated for and its launch is still two years away.

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, confirmed a plan to renew efforts to fight the levy when outgoing prime minister Keir Starmer’s replacement takes office. 

ߣߣƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

“The international student fee levy puts us in the bizarre situation of the government effectively putting a tariff on a UK export,” she said. 

“We will be calling on the next prime minister to reverse the decision to introduce the levy because it will damage the economies of towns and cities across England, the interests of UK students and the vital research universities undertake.”

ߣߣƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

Burnham has expressed support for international students in the past, co-signing a letter from seven mayors  in 2018 asking the government to rethink its policies towards overseas students. 

But with Burnham now needing to find an additional £7 billion to fund the government’s latest defence commitments, there are doubts about how willing new ministers will be to give up the income from the levy, which will be used to fund new maintenance grants for students from low-income households.

“Personally I think it is unlikely they will overturn it,” said David Pilsbury, chief development officer at Oxford International. “That smacks too much of the U-turns that Starmer and Reeves were accused of, and also the levy is a fantastic political instrument to demonstrate clearly to local communities that they get some benefit from international students – and all governments in the future are going to be pushing for more of that.”

However, he said the sector should lobby for more of the levy to be reinvested in higher education. Ministers have committed to spending some of the money on grants but have not announced where the rest will go.

“A little bit of money chipped off the levy would make a massive difference to the sector and what it can do in the future to deliver what we need as a country from higher education,” said Pilsbury.

ߣߣƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

International higher education consultant Vincenzo Raimo agreed: “There is a strong argument that if government is taxing one of the UK’s most successful export sectors, at least some of the proceeds should be transparently reinvested in strengthening that sector.”

He referenced the Export Education Levy in New Zealand, where all education providers are charged a percentage of their income from international student tuition fees. The money is used to fund aspects of the international education sector, including student support and protection.

The sector may also consider asking the new government to soften the levy. The Russell Group has previously called for PhD students to be exempt from the levy, arguing that including them will “harm ambitions for economic growth and the UK’s [research and development] capabilities”. 

ߣߣƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

Ben Moore, head of policy (international) at the Russell Group, said any new prime minister “should be seriously reconsidering the levy in its entirety”. 

He continued: “Burnham’s vision for UK innovation puts universities at the heart of local economies: the levy poses a threat to universities as engines of growth.”

The current design of the levy means universities with tighter margins and lower fees are likely to be hit the hardest, added Raimo. These institutions are often those that focus on widening participation and operate in areas of disadvantage – likely to be a cornerstone of Andy Burnham’s approach to governing. 

Raimo said: “If I had one message for the new government, it would be that the levy should be judged not simply by the revenue it raises but by whether it supports the government’s wider objectives for higher education, research, international education and the UK’s long-term economic competitiveness.”

ߣߣƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

new
The UK government cannot risk spending any of the money raised from the international student levy on anything other than devolved EDUCATION spending in England (including student maintenance loans, but not limited to that). And behind that simple assertion lies a tangled mass of complex political and fiscal issues facing the new Prime Minister of the UK state .... The only way the UK government can avoid spending from the proposed levy involving extra Barnett consequential payments for the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and NI is by treating it as an entirely "hypothecated tax". If it spends it on anything else limited solely to England other are than education, eg health, transport, social care, local government etc, it "de-hypothecates" the income stream in fiscal terms and that makes it liable for payment of Barnett consequentials of approximately one-tenth of the spending. For this reason Burnham will find his hands extremely tied on what he can do about this. Burnham has previously suggested the Barnett formula should go - it's certainly well past its 'sell-by-date', as it's been around as a "temporary" measure for nearly 50 years and is entirely non-statutory but affecting every single UK government spending department. There was certainly a head-of-steam building up when Burnham made his opposition a few years ago to Barnett arguing that the whole thing should be reviewed and changed. But that was when there was such a thing as a Labour government and First Minister in Wales, which had argued it was hard-done-by due to the formula - particularly regarding the classification by the UK government of the massive HS2 train project being a joint England-Wales project, despite going nowhere near Wales, and therefore denying the Welsh Government substantial £billion funding stream for transport projects that do actually benefit Wales residents. But there's now a new government led by a Plaid Cymru First Minister in Wales, where the Labour Party was toppled and humiliated in May after a century of being the leading party, coming a very poor third. And any attempt to review funding for Scotland will attract potential criticism from the newly re-elected SNP Scottish government following May's elections there, where Labour also came third in votes and tumbled to its lowest seat tally in devolution history. With elections also due in May 2027 in Northern Ireland and a renewed push by Sinn Fein, in a "Celtic Alliance" with Plaid Cymru and SNP of all three devolved governments by the leading parties for separation from the UK, a rushed, poorly-planned and badly-explained review of Barnett and all devolved financing matters could tip the balance of public opinion rapidly towards UK break-up. While Burnham is full of the benefits of "devolution", so long as it only affects England's councils, he risks a lot if he deviates from spending the levy on anything other than maintenance grants or similar devolved education spending. It seems to me that Burnham is far more likely to hand the income from the levy as hypothecated education spending to the new Metro Mayors and combined authorities to tackle skills and participation rates through explicitly approved projects by the Department for Education (the previous Blair government had a project of "Education Action Zones" that could be resurrected for Metro Mayors/combined authorities. His problem is then postponed for another day, though if the levy results in a subsequent of reduction of funds, as English universities recruitment of international students falls over time, the perils of hypothecation to something largely unrelated becomes more difficult to plan and explain. Troubled waters lie ahead over this ... Michael Picken, Glasgow.
new
Thank you for this authoritative comment. So many pieces and comments, especially on funding, seem to forget deveolved arrangements and their implications and unintended consequences. The on-going arrangements the UK makes in its EU reset also may have similar implications for domestic fundings and international fees of course in terms of youth mobility and Erasmus Plus which need to be taken into account. So many layers to address.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT