Students caught up in the weekend delivery loans crisis have been given a reprieve

Mr Speaker, I’d also like to share that we are concerned about students affected by providers’ misclassification of weekend courses. As ministers, we have asked the Student Loans Company to collect any overpayments through normal student finance repayments and to pause recoveries of overpaid grants until at least September while we consider next steps.

That didn’t stop shadow minister Saqib Bhatti piling in with his pre-prepared question:

I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know this government always finds someone else to blame. So will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped so they do not demand payment from innocent students?

He referred the honourable gentleman to the reply he gave a moment ago.

This is, of course, what should have happened all along – and will be a huge relief to those affected, but there’s obviously still some loose ends to tie up. To get this coming term’s maintenance loan (and any grant funding like childcare allowance), students will still have to have switched onto an eligible course.

The pressure they’ve been put under to switch – often without knowing if they’ll actually be entitled to maintenance in the future – very much looks like unlawful pressure selling to me.

And where students won’t or can’t switch (largely because they’ll be at work) there’s precious little advice going out to them making clear that they’re due compensation and/or refunds.

More broadly, it’s not at all clear why or how the initial decision was made to publish the students who enrolled in good faith, nor why the decision has now been amended.

It was surely stretching credibility that the Student Loans Company (SLC) was going to be able to enter into 22,000 individual negotiations with students to establish payment plans.

Perhaps the legal threat from a group of universities focussed minds – perhaps the guidance wasn’t quite as clear as ministers had been assured it was.

The BBC report says that it understands ministers became concerned that “support wasn’t being provided as consistently or urgently as needed”. You do wonder what they were expecting to happen.

The BBC also reports that nine of the universities involved that took the first step towards legal action last week said it was “disgraceful” that the change was announced in Parliament before students were informed.

Some will argue that the “disgrace” was allowing students to continue and in some cases enrol en masse following the Phillipson letter in December. But perhaps what’s needed here is a proper investigation – if only there was some sort of regulator to launch one?

Oh. There’s two.

Meanwhile, as well as getting in a muddle about OfS and the OIA over free speech complaints, MacAlister was also asked about a recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam Students’ Union that shows that 82 per cent of students are struggling:

With many working more hours at the expense of their studies, too many are skipping meals, going without essentials, harming their health and participation in university life. This is compounded by serious financial challenges to our universities, which include staff cuts that are putting further pressure on students’ learning experiences. What action is the Minister taking across government to review and widen financial support for students?

The response was that the government is “future-proofing” maintenance loans by increasing them by forecast inflation every year.

That means using what, by the autumn, will be a woefully out-of-date and undercooked calculation given the coming inflation crisis, all while leaving the threshold over which parents have to chip in frozen.

If you’re from the poorest background, compared to 10 years ago you’ll be entitled to £809 less than if loans had risen by CPI, £1,289 less than if loans had risen by RPI, and £2,660 less than if Augar’s proposal to link loans to the minimum wage had been implemented.

Future-proofing? Good lord.