Financial Support (Students)

Graham P Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate—its timing could not have been better.

I will focus my remarks on EMA and, more appropriately, on the Government’s intention to scrap it. EMA is absolutely crucial for my constituents. Removing it will damage the hopes and aspirations of young people across the country, but the effect will be particularly bad in my constituency. The present policy represents yet another damaging U-turn by this Government; it is another Lib Dem let-down and a massive betrayal of the hopes and dreams of young people. It sends a resounding message to 16-year-olds who aspire to improve their lives. It leaves talent unfound and unnurtured, while reinforcing poverty traps and dividing further those who are fortunate from those who are not.

Before I develop those points further, it is important to highlight EMA’s success. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was right to say that it was piloted in Hackney. That was in 1999, and EMA was launched across England in 2004. Research by the Responsive College Unit found that it encouraged 18,500 young people to participate in further education in the first year it was rolled out nationally. Those young people would not have had that financial support or that incentive to enter further education were it not for EMA. Similar research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that young people who receive EMA go on to achieve the qualifications required to succeed in life. The percentage of learners receiving EMA who achieve level 2 qualifications has increased by approximately 6%, with specific improvements in ethnic and minority groups.

The facts are clear: this policy was an absolute success, and we should make no mistake about that. To suggest otherwise is completely misleading. EMA truly encouraged young people to go on to achieve what they deserved and desired. It boosted attainment among those facing the biggest challenges in life and enabled them to succeed.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend add one important element to that—confidence? EMA gave young people confidence.

[Karl Turner]

I absolutely agree. I am sure that that point will be reiterated time and again throughout the debate.

The Minister is well aware of the facts and of EMA’s successes. So, for that matter, are the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education. Before the election, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties were quick to deliver assurances that EMA would be protected. Referring to the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), the Secretary of State, in a Guardian question and answer session on 2 March, stated:

“Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won’t.”

That was not true.

Speaking of education maintenance allowances, the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister—he is never one to miss an opportunity—said,

“no we don’t have any plans to get rid of them.”

Seven months is a long time in politics. What message is the coalition sending to young people about politics and our society? Sixteen to 18-year-olds across the country are being told that education is for those who can afford it, while those who cannot, need not apply.

Given EMA’s successes and the help that it has offered thousands of young people, the current proposal raises the question of whether the Government are comfortable punishing the disadvantaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing the debate. I shall try to keep my comments brief, because I know that others wish to speak.

The discretionary learners support fund is a mere 13% of the money provided under the educational maintenance allowance. Do the Government estimate that the number of people in need of financial support through further education is only 13% of what it once was or are Members arguing, as has been suggested, that youngsters will still go to college, but they will go impoverished?

Nearly 19,000 students in Lancashire rely on the EMA to give families the financial flexibility that allows them to continue to study. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), who is no longer in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), noted that students in receipt of EMA outperformed other students—by 7% in Sefton and 6% in Hull East, I think. In areas such as my constituency, the EMA often means the difference between going on to further study and not doing so.

Stephen Carlisle, the principal of Accrington and Rossendale college, which is our local college, told me that he is expecting a big drop in numbers. He believes the withdrawal of the EMA

“will impact on the ability of poorer students to go to college”.

The college will have to use its already stretched budget to help those disadvantaged students because, as Mr Carlisle said:

“We can’t cast them aside and just educate those who can afford to go”.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

rose—

[Graham Jones]

I will not give way. I want to make some progress, because there are other Members who wish to speak. I do not have a lot of comments to make.

The experience in the college reflects the comments of a lot of other principals; it is not only Mr Carlisle who is expressing that opinion, and when it comes from the educational establishment, I think we should listen.

I could suggest that, in reality, the figure set aside for the new fund was plucked out of thin air and does not reflect any proven need. One might go as far as to say that it is nothing more than a token attempt to ease the pain of taking money from those who need it. However, this is just one part of a wider attack on education. If the Government are so keen to show adherence to the Browne report, why are they ignoring one of its main recommendations—the increase in university participation by 10%—by scrapping a policy that has been shown to increase attendance?

Even by the estimate, which the Government accepted, of the National Foundation for Educational Research, the EMA accounted for 12% of those who attended university. They are people who otherwise may not have gone. The trebling of tuition fees has already made meeting Lord Browne’s 10% increase in participation unlikely, and scrapping the EMA will make it extremely difficult.

Government Members ask what the alternative is; I think the alternative is simple. The cuts are too fast, too deep and they go too far, as we, on this side of the House, have stated. That is a basis for rejecting the proposal. To sum up, the discretionary learners support fund is a token attempt to give a facelift to a counter-intuitive policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr Nick Gibb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Clark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) on securing today’s debate. I know that she cares passionately about supporting young people in their continuing education, a passion that I share.

One of the Government’s objectives is full participation in education, training, or employment with training, for all young people up to the age of 18. I listened to the hon. Lady carefully, and I understand the concerns of students at Bexley further education college, where 43% of students qualify for education maintenance allowance, and those at Greenwich community college, where 38% of students qualify. Nationally, 45% of students qualify for EMA, so I am aware that the decisions that we have taken affect a large number of 16 to 18-year-olds.

We need to set the debate in the context of the budget deficit. It is £156 billion this year, the highest among G20 countries.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gibb]

I shall give way once I have finished this point.

The interest on accumulated Government debt to date is £42.7 billion per year, which represents 70% of the entire Department for Education budget. Unless we take serious measures to tackle the deficit, we will face a higher cost of borrowing as capital markets demand greater compensation for the heightened risk. Without the action that the Government are taking, we would ultimately face the economic crises that now confront Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal. This country was on the brink of financial crisis.

[Mr Gibb]

I will give way once I have finished the point.

This country took action in the emergency Budget and the spending review. As a result, that crisis has been averted. I listened to the 14 or 15 Opposition Members who spoke during the debate, and I did not hear one alternative suggestion of how to find a saving of £500 million elsewhere in the Budget. They had no answer on how to avoid financial meltdown, or how to tackle the record budget deficit that the Labour Government left for this Government to clear up. They had no answer on how to bring our economy back from the brink.

Labour’s stewardship of the economy has left young people struggling to find jobs, as employers freeze recruitment. Unless we get the economy moving again, that tragedy will persist. Not tackling the deficit will put that recovery in jeopardy. I give way to the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), to see whether he can tell us how to find £500 million of savings elsewhere in the Budget.

[Graham Jones]

Is it not the case that it was the Government’s choice to cut so deep? Is it not the case that, before the election and afterwards, the Government accused Labour Members of not cutting deep enough? Is it not the case, therefore, that the Government chose to remove the EMA for the economic decisions that the Minister has outlined? The Opposition would not have needed to do that, nor go as far, because, as the Minister says, we would not have cut the deficit so fast.

[Mr Gibb]

The economy would have suffered as a result.

EMA costs £560 million a year. As we heard, it has been in existence for about six years; it was rolled out nationally in 2004, following a pilot. It was successful in raising participation rates among 16-year-olds from 87% in 2004 to 96% this year. As a consequence, attitudes among 16-year-olds to staying on in education have changed. When the National Foundation for Educational Research questioned recipients of EMA, it found that 90% would have stayed on in education regardless of whether they received EMA.