Protestors against the £9,000 tuition fees outside the University of London in 2010. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Student loans policy likely to cost more than the system it replaced – how could they be so wrong?

Tripling fees to £9,000 was a clever exercise in smoke and mirrors accounting. Students and universities are paying the price.

The latest estimate of the costs of the student loan system given by David Willetts, the Universities Minister, comes as no surprise. Both before and after the Coalition rushed through its reform of university funding in 2010, we warned in briefings to MPs that the government’s sums were wrong.

Willetts has now conceded that 45p in the pound of the money lent to students for fee and maintenance loans may never be repaid by graduates. This figure stands in sharp contrast to the Impact Assessment published by his own department of Business, Innovation and Skills. In June 2011 BIS claimed that the write-off would be between 28 and 32 per cent.

Using detailed modelling of the costs of the system undertaken by London Economics, we had no hesitation in providing evidence to the BIS Select Committee which challenged these assumptions. As it turned out the Committee’s MPs were rightly sceptical of the government’s forecasts.

It took until May 2013 for Willetts to throw in the towel and concede that the write-off might be 35p in the pound. By December 2013 an answer reported in Hansard confirmed that the BIS estimate had risen to 40p. Three months later this has increased yet again. It seems that Nick Clegg’s promise that the majority of students will never repay their loans is about to come true but it is hardly good news for taxpayers.

So is this all just an arid argument among economists? Behind all of these figures is a story which goes to the heart of the coalition’s fiscal policies and its belief that higher education should be opened to the market. Tripling fees to £9,000 was a clever exercise in smoke and mirrors accounting which removed direct funding of universities from the BIS departmental budget. Its primary aim was to help George Osborne eradicate the structural deficit by 2015. Lifting the fee cap was also accompanied by policies which favoured private providers which now benefit from double the amount of state-subsidised fee loans than were available under Labour even though they remain largely unregulated.

Unsurprisingly many younger students have opted into higher education even though fees have risen. Unless their parents enjoy considerable wealth, they have little choice but to take out a fee loan if they want to study for a degree. But 30,000 qualified students chose not to progress to university in 2012 and may never return to higher education. Critically participation by part-time and older students has melted away. This is a horrible waste of talent.

Ministers claimed that universities would be better off under their reforms – a claim that is now treated with a great deal of scepticism. By 2015 universities will have had to absorb three further years of cost-cutting with no inflation-proofing. The grant to the Higher Education Funding Council will fall by a further 9 per cent by the date of the election. The NUS is worried about maintenance grants not keeping pace with the cost of living.

Osborne’s response is to lift the cap on student numbers but not provide any additional resources. The idea is that universities will rise or fall according to how well they compete for additional students. Of course, this move will inevitably increase further the amount that taxpayers will have to write-off but there is little mention of this.

It is difficult to understand how or why the coalition got the costs of their higher education reforms so wrong for so long. The thousand dollar question which all political  parties now have to answer is just how they will fund universities in the future to deliver a system that is fair for students, graduates and taxpayers. It’s unlikely that a funding regime that costs 45p in the pound is the solution.

Pam Tatlow is Chief Executive of the university think-tank million+

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.