UK loans review set to dispel ‘fiscal illusions’ and hike deficit

Impending ONS student loans review to impact on chancellor’s deficit elimination goal and government’s post-18 education review

December 12, 2018
Optical illusion
Source: Getty

An impending review of the treatment of student loans in UK government accounts is expected to dispel the “fiscal illusions” that brought about the trebling of tuition fees and further jeopardise the chancellor’s hopes of eliminating the deficit – by adding billions to it.

The Office for National Statistics’ review of student loans, scheduled for publication on 17 December, also has major implications for the government’s review of post-18 education in England, which was delayed to take account of the ONS’ conclusions.

The UK’s student loans are repaid contingent on income, with outstanding balances written off after 30 years. On latest estimates, 45 per cent of outlay on England’s post-2012 loans will be written off.

But in government accounts the borrowing is displayed as “standard loans”, meaning that the outlay is not included in public sector net borrowing, the government’s chosen measure of the budget deficit, and that interest on student loans is recorded as income.

The government’s Office for Budget Responsibility has described these presentational advantages of student loans as “fiscal illusions”.

These presentational advantages were put into sharp focus when the Conservative-led coalition took office in 2010. English higher education funding was switched away from direct grant towards student loans, to meet George Osborne’s prioritisation of deficit reduction as chancellor.

Gordon McKenzie, GuildHE chief executive and a former senior higher education civil servant responsible in Whitehall, said: “Depending on the option ONS chooses [from four options on how to treat loans], it could add perhaps £12 billion to the deficit at a stroke. But outside of accounting’s dark arts nothing has changed – the same cash still goes out the door.”

Nevertheless, the ONS review could thus further jeopardise the aim of chancellor Philip Hammond to eliminate the deficit by the mid-2020s.

Leaks from the government’s post-18 education review, led by Philip Augar, suggest that it may recommend lowering fees to between £6,500 and £7,500.

The potential addition to the deficit arising from the ONS review is “such a big number that the Treasury can’t possibly recoup it all”, Mr McKenzie said. But “to claw some of it back” the Treasury may look at “making loan terms less generous for future students and – if the leaks about Augar’s thinking are true – not topping up lower fees with enough money to fund the true costs of teaching”, he added.

The ONS has said that implementation of a decision on how loans will be treated into “headline statistics will take some time and that any change will be reflected in the public sector finances by the end of 2019”.

Andy Westwood, professor of government practice at the University of Manchester, said that the ONS review “effectively gives [Mr Augar] more choices and options as the new short-run ‘costs’ of the status quo may look more like the ‘costs’ of other options”, such as direct public funding.

john.morgan@timeshighereducation.com

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Student loans review set to hike UK deficit

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Related articles

Reader's comments (2)

Applause, and about time! The accounting treatment of these 'loans' was always a lie; calling them 'loans' was always a lie. I say 'lie' advisedly: the accounting treatment, and calling them 'loans'-- when they lack the most basic characteristic of a loan, a requirement to repay the sum loaned-- were designed to obscure the truth. Once the truth is declared: as the last paragraph of the article points out, we see that, from the public-accounting, deficit-reduction point of view, there is not much difference between the current system and "direct public funding". We can then openly debate the other factors on which we should decide which system is best. For example: Does the taxpayer want students who believe they are paying for their education and thus believe they are 'consumers' who should be given whatever they want-- even if it undermines their education and the public good-- or does the taxpayer want students who know the public are paying for them and the public will not tolerate students wasting our money?
If the interest rates on student loans were not so exhorbitant there might be more chance of paying them back! But the funadmental point remains: is the government prepared to invest in the future, by ensuring that there is a steady stream of well-educated open and enquiring minds amongst the citizens of this country?

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October

Sponsored

Featured jobs

Programme and Delivery Manager

University Of Leeds

Analyst/Programmer

Maynooth University

Occupational Health Manager

University Of The West Of Scotland

Senior Veterinary Epidemiologist

Scotland's Rural College (sruc)