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.

Schools White Paper

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

A great many sensible teachers and head teachers have applauded precisely that move. There is a philosophical difference between the hon. Gentleman’s approach and my approach. When I say that we are no longer going to require something, that does not mean that we are saying to everyone, “Under no circumstances do it.” We believe in something called freedom, which means that it is up to individual teachers or head teachers to decide for themselves. It is called “treating people like adults.”

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on raising standards. In Leicestershire, however, we have a particular issue because we are one of the last counties to retain the middle school system. Local head teachers are telling me that this is holding back standards, particularly in GCSE results. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss how best to move away from that system so that we drive up standards in Leicestershire, too?

[Michael Gove]

I believe in diversity and pluralism—different strokes for different folks. Middle schools do very well in some parts of the country. I know that the lead member for education in Leicestershire, Ivan Oulds, is one of the most impressive councillors in the country, and I look forward to talking to him, my hon. Friend and other colleagues to see what can be done to ensure that everyone is better off.

Industry (Government Support)

Baroness Morgan of Cotes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) on his confident and well-spoken maiden speech. I noticed that he mentioned in the early part of his speech that he had worked in the Labour Whips Office, so I suspect he will be extremely useful to his new colleagues in helping to explain to them exactly how this place works. He also mentioned the need for jobs for the future; I entirely endorse what he said and agree with him on that.

I think it was the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills who set out earlier the basic difference of opinion between the Government and the Opposition regarding the spending of money, and that is reflected in the Government’s amendment to the Opposition motion. The previous Government tested to destruction the theory that if we throw money at a problem, we will resolve it. We all know now that that is not the case.

All Members should welcome discussion in the Chamber of the importance of manufacturing, and of the need for a balanced economy. I might have misheard the shadow Secretary of State earlier, but he seemed to imply that only Labour Members of Parliament understood the needs of manufacturing because it was based in their constituencies. Perhaps Labour Members have missed this, but there has been an election, and some seats have changed hands. I for one represent a seat with a significant amount of manufacturing, although there will be less when AstraZeneca closes its site at the end of 2011. However, my constituency has a large amount of high-tech manufacturing, including a wonderful engineering department at Loughborough university.

[Matthew Hancock]

Does my hon. Friend share my bafflement that all the speeches that we have heard from Labour Members seem to ignore the fact that over the past 13 years the share of manufacturing in our economy has halved? It is entirely contrary to the facts for them to talk about the brilliance of the Labour Government as regards manufacturing.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Manufacturing has fallen at a faster rate over the past 13 years than in the 1980s. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke about the need for a balanced economy, but the previous Government had 13 years to achieve that. I welcome the fact that the Conservative-Lib Dem Government’s coalition agreement says that there is a need for a balanced economy.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. Was not the entire strategy of the former Labour Government predicated on three things: the housing market, the growth in financial services and public sector expenditure increases? All were found wanting, and manufacturing and other sectors were neglected.

[Nicky Morgan]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I noticed a certain amount of eye rolling when an earlier speaker mentioned that she had worked in the financial services industry. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, the financial services industry’s growth over the past 13 years was huge. We will not take lessons from Labour Members in that regard.

In referring to industry, I think that Labour Members have been talking about larger companies—perhaps I will be corrected—but most people in this country work for smaller businesses, and in some cases very small businesses. They are the backbone of our economy, and their growth will drive the economy out of the current situation.

I want to talk about three aspects of support for business, some of which have been referred to already. First, more bank lending to businesses is necessary. As chamber of commerce research shows, small businesses are being penalised with higher rates of interest. In my constituency, two gentlemen running a small industrial company who rightly took out a mortgage to buy premises in 2007—when lenders were falling over themselves to lend their company money, as it was a very sound bet and had never failed to make repayments—have suddenly been told by the building society in question that the property has fallen in value and that the ratios are therefore wrong, so they will have to renegotiate the mortgage and pay higher interest rates that are clearly beyond them. That is exactly what banks should not be doing at this critical time in the economic cycle when businesses need support.

[Mr Watson]

Will the hon. Lady suggest how Government might intervene to stop that?

[Nicky Morgan]

Obviously I am not running the Treasury, and I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Hon. Members: “Not yet.”] That is too kind.

I contacted the chief executive of the building society I mentioned and asked for an explanation, but I sometimes wonder whether decisions are made at a lower level of management and without any real thought or understanding. We heard a statement earlier about the directors of banks. I should like to know whether all directors are fully informed of the way in which their bank is running its business, and whether they realise that they are putting the squeeze on businesses which, although sound, cannot afford to make higher repayments at this stage of the economic cycle while they are also trying to stay afloat and keep people employed.

Much has already been said about the increase in regulation. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, small firms spend seven hours a week dealing with red tape. I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a “one in, one out” system. I do not know whether other Members have been receiving surveys, but I received one recently asking what law I would like to introduce. Actually, I do not want to introduce any more laws. I should like to see fewer laws. I should like laws and regulations to be simplified, both for businesses and for individuals.

Members have mentioned the gold-plating of European Union legislation, which goes on all the time. I sincerely hope that following the change of Government, we shall see an instruction that regulations are no longer to be gold-plated.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

May I commend to the hon. Lady the most recent report of the Regulatory Reform Committee, published in the last Session? Evidence was taken from a wide range of sources, including the London Business School, which said that it was not true that Britain was in the habit of gold-plating EU regulations.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall certainly look at the report, but I know from my business experience that that is not the case. Some regulations may not have been gold-plated, but I understand that in one instance that has been brought to my attention—the agency workers directive—the Government have gone further than was intended in the EU’s original drafting.

I visited a local business recently, a recruitment company. I was told that it employed one individual to help it to deal with its accounts. In one month, he has to fill in four different forms for a business register and employment survey, an annual business survey, an annual survey of hours and earnings, and a monthly wages and salaries survey. The annual business survey asked how long it took him to fill in the form. It had taken him one hour and 25 minutes—one hour and 25 minutes that could have been spent earning money for the business. Who is using all this information, and what is it being used for? Is it just going into some big black hole somewhere? We are making our businesses spend far too long on red tape and form-filling.

Before I return to the subject of regional development agencies, I want to say something about skills and apprenticeships. I was delighted when, earlier today, the Prime Minister said that there would be support for them in the Budget, and I welcome the 50,000 additional places that are mentioned in the amendment to the motion. We have a terrific college in Loughborough, which I visited again recently. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science has visited it with me, and his colleague the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has visited it as well.

The college provides a variety of courses, but its building plans—like those of the college in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James)—have been hit by the chaos in the Learning and Skills Council. Having committed £30,000 to the planning process for its new buildings, Loughborough college found that the LSC had massively overspent, and that it would receive none of the money. It now tells me that, although it does a tremendous job and its courses are well over-subscribed, its buildings will not be fit for purpose for much longer, and it does not know how it will find the money to fund the new ones.

Adult learning is very important. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) spoke of aspiration. I think that we should encourage better careers advice, emphasising the importance of manufacturing to school pupils and informing them of the opportunities that are available in the engineering sector and, indeed, all areas of manufacturing. One practical suggestion from a manufacturer is to help employers to run in-house training courses.

I want to comment on RDAs because I did not get a chance to intervene on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). Some RDAs may have achieved their purpose, but I recently spoke at a conference organised by the Leicestershire Asian Business Association. There were 50 people in the room. Not one of them—I specifically asked the question—had a good word to say about their RDA, the East Midlands Development Agency. I am happy to listen but it is up to the regions to decide the best way to offer business support. The best way may be through local enterprise partnerships. It may be through keeping some form of regional structure, but I support the amendment to the motion.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—