There is a certain incoherence in a public-funded system that makes it easier for talent to leave than for it to stay.
Launching this coming January, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement will undoubtedly unlock new possibilities for higher education participation, particularly for those who stand to benefit from the new residual entitlement.
If LLE achieves its ambitions, it should become more commonplace for graduates to top up their academic qualifications with professional qualifications, alleviating mid-career stagnation and increasing productivity.
As with previous UK government-backed student loans, LLE will be open to a broad swathe of resident adults of working-age, including citizens, nationals, refugees and others holding settled status. Where LLE departs, however, from the previous loan, is the removal of the same-level exemption; this now means migrants can overlay their foreign-earned qualifications with ones earned in the UK. This may act to level workplace competitiveness, which again, should contribute to productivity and agility.
I’ve paid for you with tears
LLE also carries over the practice of shutting out many newly-arrived migrants, despite their genuine intention to resettle. Under the current immigration system, a migrant normally must reside in the UK for five years before they can apply for settled status, a prerequisite for many loan applications. The migrant will then need to wait for approval as well as the next admissions cycle to secure a place on a course, meaning a wait of six years for Government-funded study.
Assuming that a migrant would be able to break and study full-time, they may still face a decade-long wait – nearly a quarter of a working-life – to obtain a funded Level 6 degree. Even for those already holding a Level 6 degree, they could, again, be shut out of Government-backed loans for professional upskilling or retraining until they are granted settled status. This has particular significance for those working in regulated professions prior to migrating, such as healthcare, engineering, and education, as they may need to upskill to meet regulatory requirements in the UK.
The first problem with this is obvious: if you delay or freeze career progression by years, you are likely to impair wage growth. The second one is as well: if the tail of an income-contingent loan plan sits in retirement (or after death), it is unlikely to be paid. Extending the period before settled status will only exacerbate these two problems; it may be that more is lost in unrealised repayments and tax gains than saved by deterring loan misuse.
You’re everywhere I go
The third and fourth problems, however, require slightly more attention.
According to the Migration Observatory, men outnumbered women on study and asylum routes – both known for transience – whereas women outnumbered men on work and partnership routes, routes that can lead to long-term settlement. This means that over a ten-year period, women are more likely to stay, and with this, become loan eligible.
Under the current arrangements, younger female migrants would likely be near or amidst childbearing age at the point of eligibility, which may delay participation or impair continuation. It may also delay professional development for the women who, again, are most likely to remain in the UK – women who migrate for work, and are thus already valuable for the economy, as well as women who marry loan-eligible citizens and yet remain shut out.
If I’m smart, then I’ll run away
Although the negative consequences for migrant gender equality warrant further discussion, I will move on to what is perhaps the most emotive problem in the current system – young adults who hold strong A-levels but cannot access loan funding or independently fund their study. This can include young adults awaiting the outcome of an asylum claim, but also children of migrant key workers such as nurses and teachers. There are a limited number of highly competitive scholarships and bursaries on offer for this group, but again, no loan-funded route to keep options maximally open.
What I am not proposing is an overall liberalisation in loan issuance, although it is worth stressing that loans remain repayable regardless of where someone might go on to reside after completion, and fraudulent access by migrants remains low. What I am instead suggesting is giving greater attention to the problems as outlined above.
But I’m not, so I guess I’ll stay
The first and second problems, again, are a delay in access to opportunities to upskill paired with diminished chances that a loan will be paid in full. Unlike academic courses, vocational and professional courses tend to charge an undifferentiated rate for all participants, so home fee eligibility does not apply. It is also less likely that a participant would be reliant on maintenance funding to succeed in their study. Therefore, permitting some migrants awaiting settled status, especially those entering on work visas, to access fee loans for priority modules would likely serve to improve domestic talent but also create an incentive for working migrants to stay.
Returning to the third problem, given that women are three times more likely than men to enter on a partner visa, and that women are likely to be entering into a partnership with a spouse that holds an entitlement to LLE, the risk of uneven outcomes for the migrant female partner should be evident. Consideration should be given to fast-tracking migrants in this situation.
To address the fourth and final problem, I wish to return to my opening statement. By cultivating talent, LLE could mean that more UK-residents move to countries that offer higher salaries and a better quality of life. For example, the average salary of a data analyst in the UK is £50,000, whereas those in Australia earn roughly 10 per cent more.
I’ll take my chance on a beautiful stranger
This loss can only be balanced by cultivating talent of equal measure, which may, again, be the young adults who have done exceptionally well on their pre-entry qualifications despite the deracination that accompanies migration. Permitting colleges to apply for an exception on behalf of a student under 19 (and without the means to afford study) would likely prove to be uncontroversial.
Given the new possibilities presented by LLE, perhaps it’s time to enter into a new relationship with those passing through the ever-narrowing routes of legal migration. It may be through partial or exceptional access, but total exclusion risks under-developing the talent that wants to remain.
