University Student Finance
Debate between Lord Hain and Baroness Smith of Malvern(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are taking decisive action to improve the student finance system that we inherited. We are capping interest rates to protect plan 2 and plan 3 borrowers from inflation shocks. We increased the plan 2 repayment threshold twice—its first increases since 2021. We have future-proofed maintenance loans, and we will be reintroducing maintenance grants in 2028. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but surely the student finance system inherited from the Conservatives is an utter shambles: there is mountainous student debt, averaging £70,000, compounding at extortionate interest rates; the Treasury is left with ginormous liabilities, because half is never repaid and is written off; and nearly half of UK universities have rising deficits, with closures and mergers forecast, thousands of lecturers sacked and diminished teaching standards. For every £3.50 paid by taxpayers on debt cancellation, just £1 is spent on teaching students. This is madness. Will the Government implement a graduate tax, estimated at 2%, much lower than the 9% now compulsorily deducted from graduate workers above the repayment threshold? This would be much fairer for students, good for universities and good for taxpayers.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend’s criticisms of plan 2 loans, which were designed by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. Having said that, in principle, a combination of income-contingent student loans and grants is a fair way to ensure that those who benefit from higher education contribute, while lower earners are protected. On the point about the financial sustainability of higher education, our increase of the tuition fee cap is now providing more certainty to higher education about its income from tuition fees, which should enable it to take a longer-term view of its workforce planning and to protect the talent that exists within our higher education institutions. A graduate tax would dramatically increase upfront costs for taxpayers and incentivise graduates to move overseas after completing study. I suspect that these are just a couple of the reasons why no country has ever financed higher education in this way.
Young People not in Work, Education or Training
Debate between Lord Hain and Baroness Smith of Malvern(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are investing £820 million over the spending review to help young people earn or learn through the youth guarantee. This includes a job guarantee, in which every eligible 18 to 21 year-old who has been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months will be guaranteed six months’ paid work. In addition, we have announced £725 million for the growth and skills levy to support apprenticeships for young people, alongside reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what my noble friend the Minister has just explained, but does she agree that nearly 1 million people not being in work, education or training—rising remorselessly under the last Government—is terrible for them and for taxpayers? The longer people are out of work, the more costly it is to prepare them for work. The media and right-wing clamour for short-term cuts in welfare is for the birds, frankly. Labour’s hugely successful 1997 new deal for young people programme helped more than its targeted 250,000 young people to move off welfare into employment, costing £668 million or up to £8,000 per person. However, national income grew by at least £200 million annually—so, short-term costs for long-term savings. Surely, that should be our policy today?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question and also for his history of tackling this issue in past Labour Governments. I fully agree with him that having nearly 1 million young people not in work, education or training is not only bad for those young people but also very bad for the economy. That is why we have today announced further detail on the policy measures underpinning the youth guarantee, to which this Government have committed £820 million over the next three years. For young people on UC, we are introducing a new youth guarantee gateway session and follow-up support, which will be offered to nearly 900,000 16 to 24 year-olds in jobcentres over the next three years. We are expanding youth hubs to over 360 locations, creating around 300,000 opportunities for young people to gain workplace experience and training. We are also fully funding apprenticeship training costs for all eligible 16 to 24 year-olds, by removing the need for non-levy-paying employers to co-fund these learners; that is alongside the job placement for 18 to 21 year-olds that I have already talked about. That is the way we will turn around the scandal of nearly 1 million young people neither earning nor learning, with all the damage that creates for them and the economy.