First, I associate myself wholeheartedly with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and the amendments standing in our names. One of their key aims is to preserve the conditionality principle that was such an important aspect of the EMA, and I ask Ministers to give a commitment on that. The beauty of EMA was that students had to attend and attain in order to get it. In effect, the state said to the student: ““If you work hard and try hard, we will back you regardless of your background. We think you deserve the same opportunities as your peers.””
That was very important. Before entering Parliament, I worked with children and young people for seven or eight years, and I was always struck by their strong sense of the importance of fairness. If young people are going to buy into whichever scheme replaces the EMA, it is essential that they see that it is fair. The aspect of the EMA that I have just highlighted was one of the main reasons why young people thought that it was fair, because those who were working hard and trying hard were assured by their Government that they would get it and be supported.
Following the chaos and insecurity caused by the shambolic way in which the cancellation of the EMA was announced, I was very pleased that Ministers listened and made some commitments in relation to students who have already started their courses. I was also deeply disappointed that the scheme for existing students was altered so that the maximum payment that they receive was reduced. Young people in my constituency rely on the EMA not as an extra or a perk, but as an essential part of their household income.
One of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I are seeking to ensure that there are clear national eligibility criteria for the EMA is that students in our constituencies rely on knowing that they will get the EMA in order to make the decision to go to college in the first place. Those students absolutely need to know whether they will qualify. The key issue in respect of the concern that has already been expressed about the possibility of a postcode lottery and about discretion appearing to be the direction of travel is that under those circumstances such students simply will not be able to make an informed choice on whether to go to college.
Education Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lisa Nandy
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 11 May 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Education Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
527 c1246-7 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:07:49 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_741183
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_741183
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_741183