Financial Support (Students)

Simon Kirby Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Westminster Hall

[Julian Sturdy]

There is no doubt that there must be support for the poorest and most deprived areas to help young people into education, and I will come to that. Government policy allows for that, but the question is whether the money is best used and targeted at people who fall outside and are at the top end of the threshold. Perhaps it is not.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Is the issue not about fairness? In my constituency, many children live in deprived areas with no state sixth-form provision. Support should be effectively targeted. Am I not right in thinking that that is what the Government intend to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Simon Kirby]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

Not at the moment.

The message is clear. Young people have felt the brute force of this economic vandalism. This generation of young people have had the cruellest introduction to the world of politics. They have barely dipped their toe in the water, but they have been hit by wave after wave of ignored pledges, broken promises and closed ears. The coalition has defined politics for an entire generation in terms of distrust, and the coalition parties will not easily be forgiven. The scrapping of EMA leaves us in a situation where talent will be stunted due to inadequate means. Just under 5,000 young people in Hull will be locked out of further education and, therefore, higher education, and they will have any aspiration quashed.

As I said at the outset, my constituents are particularly affected. Gary, who lives on the Longhill estate in east Hull, cannot afford to pay for his textbooks, stationery or travel, but his EMA allows him to.

[Simon Kirby]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

Not at the moment. Many hon. Members are eager to speak, so you will forgive me, Ms Clark, if I do not give way.

Debbie, who lives on Bransholme, does not have the luxury of ambitious parents. She says her parents do not understand the value of further education. She says that they cannot afford to, and will not, pay for her to study, but that EMA does just that. Darren lives on Greatfield estate. His parents are among the lowest 10% of earners in the country, earning just less than £16,000 a year. He needs to pay board, but he cannot afford to. However, his EMA allows him to contribute to the family pot. EMA allows individuals to break through the boundaries and access further education. It puts an end to generation after generation of young people being locked out of further education. It truly enables social mobility.

It is illogical that, on the one hand, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is emphasising the importance of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency, while, on the other, the Education Secretary is removing the support that would enable young people to do better for themselves. If we want families to break free from welfare traps, surely it is important that we instil in our young people a thirst for education, and underline the importance of that. Offering students EMA provides them with an incentive and support to help them along the way. If Gary is without his EMA he will be without his A-levels, and therefore without his physics degree. The domino effect continues. Science and the state will be without that young talent. Can the Government honestly say that they will withdraw their support for Debbie to complete her course, denying her the chance of achieving her true potential? What about Darren, who will no longer be able to complete his NVQ in fashion design? Should he be locked out because he simply cannot afford to do the course without financial support?

I have not even mentioned the unprecedented hike in tuition fees. Even those who are lucky enough to make it through further education will have a mountain to climb on the other side as they face the prospect of £9,000-a-year fees. Let us imagine the situation, in which any of the 16-year-olds whom I have mentioned managed to complete access-to-university courses without support, but then are faced with the prospect of convincing their parents, who are of modest backgrounds, that they are about to embark on a three-year degree course that will cost them £27,00—and no doubt an awful lot more, when accommodation and living are taken into account. I know what my parents would have said to me. I left school at 16 with few qualifications. I ran a business for a while and eventually, when I was financially stable, I went off to do A-levels before completing a law degree. I eventually qualified as a barrister in 2005 at the age of 34. When I was nearing the end of pupillage, I was possibly the most elderly pupil at the Bar; so I know what a struggle it is to get educated.

I have no doubt that without the Labour Government’s lifelong learning agenda I would never have had the academic success and confidence to reach the dizzy heights of membership of the Bar, and of being elected to this place. We should make no mistake. The Government’s policy on further and higher education is not progressive. It is shamefully regressive. It effectively does away with further and higher education for those who cannot afford to pay for it. The Government are more than happy for further and higher education to become the privilege of the few. Those who can afford an education will pay for it and those who cannot simply will not have one. That is the reality of the Government agenda. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I appear angry, but the subject makes me extremely annoyed. The Government will not easily be forgiven by those young people, who are locked out of further and higher education.

EMA is important not only to the family and the student; it has a wider social benefit. Why do the Government insist on washing their hands of post-16 education, leaving the next generation unable to get access to the qualifications that they require to improve their lives? We hear a lot of talk from the Government about fairness. Is this fair? Is it productive, or is not it narrow-minded, ideological, regressive and wholly flawed? I know where I stand. I ask the Minister to look again and to think very carefully about the choices that are being made, and about the aspirations of our constituents. I ask him to put the brakes on and allow Gary, Debbie and Darren, my constituents who have bothered and troubled themselves to e-mail me about their stories, the chance to improve their situations for the benefit of us all. I cannot support the Government’s attempts to create a divide in the education system between those well off enough to pay and those less fortunate, who cannot. For those reasons I will actively oppose the Government every step of the way.