Danny Alexander confirms: the student loan book will be privatised

Off the book borrowing of the worst kind.

Danny Alexander, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has confirmed that the Government will be privatising student loans as part of a plan to raise £15bn from sales of public assets, in order to boost investment.

Speaking to the Commons today, he said:

We will take action to sell off £15 billion worth of public assets by 2020.

£10billion of that money will come from corporate and financial assets like the student loan book.

And the other £5 billion will come from land and property.

Mr Speaker, government is the custodian of the taxpayers’ assets.

When we no longer need them, we should sell them back at a fair price – not act like a compulsive hoarder.

The sale is not expected to be finalised until 2015, two years later than originally planned.

In order to get a decent amount for the loan book, the government is expected to offer sweeteners to whoever purchases it. The most extreme of these would be the proposal, revealed earlier this month, to lift the cap on interest paid by people who took out loans between 1998 and 2012.

That change would increase the revenue for whoever owned the loan book in 20 to 30 years time, because people who would otherwise have paid their loans off will still owe money. But it won't do anything for the government's balance sheet today – unless the government sells the book to a private company for a lump sum, which is exactly what it plans to do.

Another sweetener proposed has been what is called a "synthetic hedge". That would involve artificially replicating the change, by promising whoever buys the student loans that they will be paid the difference between the actual cash flow and the estimated cash flow which would have been received without the cap. It's fairer – because it spreads the cost throughout all taxpayers, rather than lumping it on young graduates – but it's also far more cowardly. Crucially, because the government would't have to pay any extra cash flow now, it won't have to work out where that extra revenue comes from. That's a difficulty it gets to offload onto a future government.

Whatever happens, a sweetener of sorts will have to be offered. Student loans are a classic example of an asset which is worth far more to the government than any private entity: a revenue stream spread over decades, with a high degree of variability in the value of the repayments.

For an organisation, like the UK state, which can borrow at record-low interest rates for decades on end, selling it off at a discount to secure a cash lump sum now is terrible financial management. It is as though they had decided borrowing to invest was a good thing, but they'd rather pay higher interest rates than they have to in order to keep it off the books. Surely not…

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Paul McMillan
Show Hide image

"We're an easy target": how a Tory manifesto pledge will tear families apart

Under current rules, bringing your foreign spouse to the UK is a luxury reserved for those earning £18,600 a year or more. The Tories want to make it even more exclusive. 

Carolyn Matthew met her partner, George, in South Africa sixteen years ago. She settled down with him, had kids, and lived like a normal family until last year, when they made the fateful decision to move to her hometown in Scotland. Matthew, 55, had elderly parents, and after 30 years away from home she wanted to be close to them. 

But Carolyn nor George - despite consulting a South African immigration lawyer – did not anticipate one huge stumbling block. That is the rule, introduced in 2012, that a British citizen must earn £18,600 a year before a foreign spouse may join them in the UK. 

“It is very dispiriting,” Carolyn said to me on the telephone from Bo’ness, a small town on the Firth of Forth, near Falkirk. “In two weeks, George has got to go back to South Africa.” Carolyn, who worked in corporate complaints, has struggled to find the same kind of work in her hometown. Jobs at the biggest local employer tend to be minimum wage. George, on the other hand, is an engineer – yet cannot work because of his holiday visa. 

To its critics, the minimum income threshold seems nonsensical. It splits up families – including children from parents – and discriminates against those likely to earn lower wages, such as women, ethnic minorities and anyone living outside London and the South East. The Migration Observatory has calculated that roughly half Britain’s working population would not meet the requirement. 

Yet the Conservative party not only wishes to maintain the policy, but hike the threshold. The manifesto stated:  “We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas.” 

Initially, the threshold was justified as a means of preventing foreign spouses from relying on the state. But tellingly, the Tory manifesto pledge comes under the heading of “Controlling Immigration”. 

Carolyn points out that because George cannot work while he is visiting her, she must support the two of them for months at a time without turning to state aid. “I don’t claim benefits,” she told me. “That is the last thing I want to do.” If both of them could work “life would be easy”. She believes that if the minimum income threshold is raised any further "it is going to make it a nightmare for everyone".

Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, co-sponsored a Westminster Hall debate on the subject earlier this year. While the Tory manifesto pledge is vague, McDonald warns that one option is the highest income threshold suggested in 2012 - £25,700, or more than the median yearly wage in the East Midlands. 

He described the current scheme as “just about the most draconian family visa rules in the world”, and believes a hike could affect more than half of British citizens. 

"Theresa May is forcing people to choose between their families and their homes in the UK - a choice which most people will think utterly unfair and unacceptable,” he said.  

For those a pay rise away from the current threshold, a hike will be demoralising. For Paul McMillan, 25, it is a sign that it’s time to emigrate.

McMillan, a graduate, met his American girlfriend Megan while travelling in 2012 (the couple are pictured above). He could find a job that will allow him to meet the minimum income threshold – if he were not now studying for a medical degree.  Like Matthew, McMillan’s partner has no intention of claiming benefits – in fact, he expects her visa would specifically ban her from doing so. 

Fed up with the hostile attitude to immigrants, and confident of his options elsewhere, McMillan is already planning a career abroad. “I am going to take off in four years,” he told me. 

As for why the Tories want to raise the minimum income threshold, he thinks it’s obvious – to force down immigration numbers. “None of this is about the amount of money we need to earn,” he said. “We’re an easy target for the government.”

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496