By John Robertson MP - 2nd November 2010
John Robertson MP writes for ePolitix.com about the importance of the Education Maintenance Allowance.
I secured an Adjournment debate today on the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), which was affectively abolished in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). For those who maybe unaware of what EMAs are: They are means-tested allowances of £10, £20 and £30 paid to 16-to-19 year olds who stay in education and come from families where annual household income is below £30,810.
EMAs were introduced nationally in September 2004 in order to reduce this country's post-16 drop-out rate which was one of the worst in the developed world at the time. The policy intent of the EMA was to broaden participation and to improve the retention and attainment of young people of 16 to19 in post compulsory education. EMA is already strictly means-tested; therefore tightening the eligibility criteria further can only harm already disadvantaged young people.
The top rate of EMA payments is £30 and 80 per cent of all EMA recipients are on this top rate, which requires recipients to come from families where the household income is below £20,810. There are over 600,000 recipients of EMA in England alone who will see this allowance withdrawn and as you can imagine many of those will be the poorest teenagers in our country.
Now, although I am a Scottish MP I still fight for young people's rights as a UK MP, and Scotland is where EMA was first attacked by the "Tartan-Tories" – the SNP. Last year they cut the EMA budget by 20 per cent and axed the £10 and £20 payments. You could say I saw the writing on the wall and didn't want EMA to suffer the same fate in England as it had in Scotland. This is a scheme close to my heart because it is based on providing a platform to poor families, which means that economic barriers will no longer stand in their way to getting an education and getting on in life.
But before the other week the Conservative party, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have all said they support EMA. The Secretary of State for Education told the Guardian newspaper only back in March that and I quote:
"Ed Balls keeps saying that we are committed to scrapping the EMA. I have never said this. We won't."
It is not only the Secretary of State for Education who has said one thing in opposition and another in government. In fact only in January this year the Prime Minster, then the leader of her majesty's opposition told the Save EMA campaign at a rather ironically named "Cameron Direct" event in Hammersmith that he supported EMA. However, as of a couple of weeks ago with the announcement in the CSR to axe EMA, it's safe to say that his support doesn't last long. I only hope for the Minister's sake that the Prime Minster doesn't have the same level of support for him as he had for EMA or he will be out of a job by Easter!
The minister tried to link the ending of this scheme with the deficit but this only showed a lack of economic competence on his part. Firstly, because if he is telling me that taking money out of the pockets of the poorest teenagers in this country is our salvation then we are beyond redemption. Secondly it makes very bad long term economic sense to do so as according to the Treasury by 2020 the amount of unskilled jobs will be half of what they are today meaning more unskilled people will be fighting for even fewer jobs.
What's more, as the Directgov website page for EMA clearly points out, for every extra skill and qualification one earns they are £3,000 a year better off. Research by the Office for National Statistics shows that people without the minimum set of qualifications earn on average £55 a week less. Now I am sure the Government will agree with me that paying people £30 a week in the short term so that they earn £55 a week more in the long-term will help us not only up-skill our workforce but also pay down the deficit faster.
A 2009 survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development found that only 17 per cent of employers were planning to recruit from the pool of 16 year olds leaving school and only a third of employers planned to recruit those leaving school at 18. And we know that being unemployed for more than 12 months under the age of 23 years has a hugely negative impact on your future, causing a permanent scar of disadvantage. Lastly, those who have experienced long durations of unemployment in their youth, still suffer from sizeable wage penalties long into their forties.
I have spoken on this subject before, when I secured an adjournment debate in the previous parliament on 2nd February this year and if you want a good example of the difference between the previous government and the new one today then it will be this policy. For example, the last time I spoke on this issue the then Minster, Iain Wright MP, committed the then Labour government to maintaining EMA in its current form up to 2011 and beyond.
Many of the young people who contacted me following that debate, with their support and thanks now feel disappointed by politics by having their fears and hopes raised and then crushed in a matter of months. Let me leave you with a comment on the Save EMA campaign website that touched me and I included in my speech:
Cassie Campbell - "I need EMA my mum is on benefits and I am a full-time student at college without EMA I can't go to college I will have to drop out and I don't want to do that"
Article Comments
The EMA benefit has been crucial for young people furthering their post 16 education to enable those from poor families to increase their potential and gain skills by attending local colleges. The benefit allows for payment of bus fares and lunch amongst other things.
Without this, those families on low incomes will be limited to or even prevented from sending thier children to further education colleges as they simply will not be able to afford to do so. If we want to provide life chances for young people, then taking away a much needed benefit will limit this and the statistics for NEATs will only increase.
Jill Frasi
3rd Nov 2010 at 2:50 pm
I totally AGREE with MP John Robertson's EMA, our 'Nation Britain' in general requires to donate EMA to young generations of today and the future.
Education are KEY FACTORS, in fact main vehicle to maintain a health economy, without education the future withhold beyond anyones future to succeed. A mass WEALTH to Britain's Economic Development, our current government has been drawing their attention away from both the Nation and its People willing to succeed.
The Way and Will to succeed in todays unpredictable future relies on many sectors and most certainly our 'Nation' needs the government's support providing opportunities to both the communities and partners to create jobs not cast them away to other developing continents. British Automobiles has gone to Germany and Italy, shipyards been demolished, bring back British works for Britain and its hoping in aching pain nation we await the government.
Tuan Nhu Tran
2nd Nov 2010 at 11:27 pm
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.