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

John McDonnell's seminars are restoring Labour's economic credibility

The Shadow Chancellor's embrace of new economics backed by clear plans will see Labour profit at the polls, argues Liam Young.

It’s the economy, stupid. Perhaps ‘it’s the economy that lost Labour the last two elections, stupid’ is more accurate. But I don’t see Bill Clinton winning an election on that one.

Campaign slogan theft aside it is a phrase Labour supporters are all too familiar with. Whatever part of the ‘broad church’ you belong to it is something we are faced with on a regular basis. How can Labour be trusted with the economy after they crashed it into the ground? It is still unpopular to try and reason with people. ‘It was a global crisis’ you say as eyes roll. ‘Gordon Brown actually made things better’ you say as they laugh. It’s not an easy life.

On Saturday, the Labour party took serious steps towards regaining its economic credibility. In January a member of John McDonnell’s economic advisory committee argued that “opposing austerity is not enough”. Writing for the New Statesman, David Blanchflower stated that he would assist the leadership alongside others in putting together “credible economic policies.” We have started to see this plan emerge. Those who accuse the Labour leadership of simply shouting anti-austerity rhetoric have been forced to listen to the economic alternative.

It seems like a good time to have done so. Recent polls suggest that the economy has emerged as the most important issue for the EU referendum with a double-digit lead. Public confidence in the government’s handling of the economy continues to fall. Faith in Cameron and Osborne is heading in the same direction. As public confidence continues to plummet many have questioned whether another crash is close. It is wise of the Labour leadership to offer an alternative vision of the economy at a time in which people are eager to listen to a way by which things may be done better.

Far from rhetoric we were offered clear plans. McDonnell announced on Saturday that he wants councils to offer cheap, local-authority backed mortgages so that first-time buyers may actually have a chance of stepping on the housing ladder. We also heard of a real plan to introduce rent regulations in major cities to ease excessive charges and to offer support to those putting the rent on the overdraft. The plans go much further than the Tory right-to-buy scheme and rather than forcing local authorities to sell off their council housing stock, it will be protected and increased.

It is of course important that the new economics rhetoric is matched with actual policy. But let’s not forget how important the rhetoric actually is. The Tory handling of the economy over the last six years has been dismal. But at the last election they were seen as the safer bet. Ed Miliband failed to convince the British public that his economic plan could lead to growth. The branding of the new economics is simple but effective. It does the job of distancing from the past while also putting a positive spin on what is to come. As long as actual policy continues to flow from this initiative the Labour leadership can be confident of people paying attention. And as economic concerns continue to grow ever more pessimistic the British public will be more likely to hear the Labour party’s alternative plan.

Liam Young is a commentator for the IndependentNew Statesman, Mirror and others.