Why tuition fees will cost six times more than they save

The coalition promised to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. But reduced university participation and higher inflation mean we'll end up paying more.

In his first Spending Review as Chancellor, George Osborne announced that the government had rejected a graduate tax but would reform higher education funding in England, requiring better-off graduates to pay more. The aim was to "reduce considerably the contribution that general taxpayers make to higher education". The switch from the direct funding of universities to indirect funding via student loans also helped Osborne to reduce the structural deficit which he said would be eliminated by 2015.

Ministers wasted no time. By December, the direct funding of universities was cut by 40 per cent over three years. Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs voted through a three-fold increase in the maximum annual tuition fee that a university in England could charge, increasing the latter to £9,000. As a result, full-time students entering university for the first time in 2012 have been charged an average fee of £8,340 with a matching state-backed loan. Maintenance grants have increased marginally. For the first-time, part-time students can access fee (but not maintenance) loans although their course grants have been cut. All student loans will increase by RPI plus 3 per cent.

Unsurprisingly, the number of students entering university fell by at least 30,000 in 2012 with a further, dramatic decline in part-time participation. Applications for 2013 offer a glimmer of hope that there may be a recovery. Even if student interest increases (not forgetting that the coalition has cut the total number of funded places by 25,000 but has yet to put any ceiling on private provider numbers) does Osborne’s assertion that this is a good deal for taxpayers still stand up?

In the second of a series of pamphlets on higher education funding, the university think-tank million+ and London Economics set out to examine the case. Are the changes to higher education funding in England cost-effective uses the latest information from the Labour Force Survey, the Funding Council, the Office of Fair Access, the Higher Education Statistics Agency and BIS, the department responsible for universities, to model the 2012 changes.

All in all, the Treasury can claim to have saved £1.666bn per student cohort. This is largely the result of the reduction in direct grant to universities but takes into account the eye-watering increase in the Resource and Accounting Budget charge (a calculation of the proportion of the loan value that is not expected to be repaid). The Office for Budget Responsibility has already estimated that the loan book will almost double to £9bn. We estimate that over a 30-year repayment period the taxpayer will write-off almost 40 per cent of the loans that students take out.

Once the loss to the Treasury of reduced participation (which in turn leads to reduced tax receipts) and the inflationary impact of higher tuition fees are taken into account, the short-term savings will be outweighed almost six and a half times by the long-term costs of the new system. 

Although the inflationary shock seems to have surprised the outgoing governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, both the Consumer Price Index and the Retail Price Index will increase in the first three years of the introduction of higher fees. Not the most popular policy at the best of times, the government’s higher education reforms may lose their sheen even more if consumers work out that regulated rail fares, water bills and postage stamps will increase in part as a result of higher  fees. 

In spite of the cap on working-age benefits from April 2013, the Treasury will make additional payments of £42m and £163m on public sector and state pensions. The Treasury will also pick up the tab because a proportion of its own borrowing is linked to RPI. The government has issued £294bn in index-linked gilts. In 2012 alone it is estimated that the Treasury will pay an additional £655m in interest repayment arising from the tuition fee hike.

Ministers claim that the new funding regime has helped to avoid a further cut in funded student numbers and maintained university funding. In fact, institutional 'gains' will not be evenly distributed and stand to be wiped out completely if 42,000 fewer students are deterred from studying for a degree. There is also the real risk that the unit of resource will be reduced in universities which have done the most to open higher education to new generations of students.

The 2012 changes to university funding undoubtedly have the effect of reducing departmental expenditure. On paper, the reforms also reduce the structural deficit but mask the fact that the government will borrow more.

When all is done and dusted, the changes to university funding in England are an accountancy measure. In economic terms, it’s much harder to see how Osborne’s higher education promise to taxpayers will stack up in the long-term.

 

Pam Tatlow is chief executive of the university think-tank million+. The research was undertaken by Dr Gavan Conlon, an expert in HE finance and partner at London Economics

Demonstrators hold placards as they gather before the start of a student rally in central London on November 21, 2012 against an increase in university tuition fees. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.