Education Maintenance Allowance

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Without doubt, the removal of education maintenance allowance will have an enormous impact on the young people of my region of the north-east, including those in my constituency in Gateshead. It is irrefutable that since its introduction, EMA has changed the landscape of young people’s aspirations in Gateshead. Staying on became an option for many, when it had not been before. Now it is being abolished—an action that will come as no surprise to my constituents, as it is entirely consistent with every other action by the coalition since it was elected in May 2010. It is now in the process of redirecting resources and wealth from the least advantaged to the most advantaged, and of crushing and removing opportunity for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in our society, including in my community.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Mearns]

I will not.

I am proud of my local authority’s role in improving the educational outcomes of young people in my borough and of the fact that it was an EMA pilot authority, prior to which it had invested in bursary awards for poorer students.

I asked all the local colleges in Newcastle and Gateshead about the impact of this proposal and its effect on them and their students. This is the response I received from Gateshead college:

“Our statistics show that 60% of our learners receive EMA”,

but among 16 to 18-year-olds it was 70% of students, with

“80% of those in receipt receiving the full payment”,

one 10th receiving two-thirds payments, and one 10th receiving a one-third payment. All those young people will be delighted to know that they are regarded by some in this Chamber as waste in the system, and by others as “dead-weight”.

The college principal told me:

“I believe that the Department of Education has made the wrong decision and that disadvantaged young people in Gateshead will suffer as a result of this decision and Ministers’ ambitions to raise the participation rate to 18 will fail.”

He continued:

“EMA is predominantly taken up by those with low achievement levels at school, those from ethnic minorities and those from single parent families and those whose families are just plainly and simply poor.”

He saw EMA as

“a vital tool for increasing social mobility… I believe that stopping EMA will result in many of these young people, from disadvantaged backgrounds, not continuing their education after 16.”

Many of these young people will simply not have the money to travel on public transport, never mind buy books—or even to eat. There is also a significant danger that many students will, on losing their EMA, be forced to drop out of college after their first year. What a potential waste when they have done a year of study!

The views I cite are not those of just one college in the north-east, as many colleges take the same view. Many Members will have received the briefing from the Association of Colleges, which represents colleges across the UK. The briefing clearly states:

“The vast majority of colleges and their governors…across the UK, oppose the abolition of EMA...94% of colleges believe that the abolition of EMA will affect students’ ability to travel to and from college.”

The Association of Colleges also estimates that up to 300,000 young people will lose their EMA part way through their two-year studies. EMA has provided a real incentive to increasing levels of attainment because payment has been tied to levels of attendance and completion of course work.

Let us be honest: none of this is a surprise to Ministers, who know that it is the young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds who will suffer most. They know that many will not be able to start or continue education beyond 16; they know that there will be a rate of attrition—collateral damage—from their policy. Ministers know this, but I am afraid to say that they appear not to care about it. If one were completely cynical, one could be forgiven for thinking that this is precisely what those Ministers want to do. For them, further and higher education is not for the disadvantaged, not for the poor, or for those whose parents or carers are on modest incomes.

I noticed with interest that the Secretary of State earlier offered to visit the local college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). Will he make the same offer to me in Gateshead, or to my colleagues in Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Sunderland or Darlington—or would it be too inconvenient for him to travel? The coalition Government talk about building a stronger and more vibrant economy, but I am sorry to say that it looks as if they are going to wreck it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend neatly brings me to my next point, which is about centralism. I tried to make this point to the shadow Secretary of State. One of the points that has been effectively raised in speeches made by hon. Members on both sides of the House is the differences among students. Young people who have a caring responsibility, a special need or a long distance to travel to college, or who are young parents, have much greater needs than some other students, so a national scheme that makes a flat-rate payment to everyone who comes from a household that earns a certain amount is not necessarily the best way to address the problem.

[Nicky Morgan]

Does my hon. Friend agree with the principal of Loughborough college, who has put it to me that he is best placed to understand the needs of students and to administer the discretionary learner support fund, but that he needs some certainty about what the fund will be in the next academic year so that he can start planning?

[Gavin Barwell]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who helpfully takes me on to the next point that I wish to make to Ministers.

The principle behind an enhanced discretionary learner support fund is exactly right. Responsibility should be devolved to people at the front line who know which of their students need help and how much help is required. There are two important caveats, however. First, we need to ensure that sufficient funding is available nationally to deal with students’ needs, and it is clear that there is a debate about how much that quantum should be and whether an adequate amount has been allocated by the Government. Secondly, we need more detail—I hope that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), will be able to give this in the limited time he has to wind up the debate—about the system for allocating the fund to schools and colleges throughout the country. That system will be critical, given that our debate has made clear the extent to which different parts of the country are dependent on EMA funding at present.

Despite the fact that I have some concerns about what the Government are doing, I will support the amendment. I have been a Member of Parliament for a relatively short time—about eight months—and during that period, I have had to vote for several measures that I would not support in an ideal world. I have sat through several debates in which Opposition Members have set out their objections to some of the things that the Government are doing. However, it seems to me and to most of my constituents, many of whom are also concerned about some of the coalition’s policies, that those objections hold weight and credibility only if there is a clearly set out alternative.

We know that the previous Labour Government were committed to reductions in spending of 25% in unprotected Departments. I have sat through debate after debate, in which we have met opposition to coalition proposals, but I have never heard one single alternative. I have never heard an Opposition Member saying, “Here is something that the Government are not cutting that we would cut.” Until we get an overall package that adds up from the Opposition, we cannot have a serious debate.

I am conscious of the time and of the fact that several Opposition Members still wish to speak, so I simply end by saying that the Government are right to look at the EMA budget. There is clear evidence that the current scheme is too centralist and that money is being spent on people who do not need the support. Like some Opposition Members, I do not like the term, “dead-weight” and I do not think that we should use it.

Clearly, we can get better value for money from the scheme and it does not need to be so centralist. The Government are right to consider it, but there are points of detail about which my constituents, many people throughout the country and I need reassurance.