Letting down the next generation

How David Cameron is kicking away the ladders of opportunity for young people

Labour will always stand up for young people. We believe it is our duty to speak up for those who have been betrayed by the Government and we are determined to do so. a decent good job.000 will be the norm. The reality is very different – it is becoming increasingly apparent that tuition fees of £9. that Britain is becoming a harder place to give children the future they deserve. The opportunity for young people from all backgrounds to access higher education is under threat from the decision by the Tories and Liberal Democrats to triple university tuition fees. Charging fees of up to £9.000 would be the exception rather than the rule. 2 .000 a year will mean that many teenagers will be put off applying or will make their choice of university based on which is the cheapest. They have scrapped the Educational Maintenance Allowance (EMA) which helped over 600. This Tory-led Government has cut Sure Start funding and now hundreds of children’s centres are under threat. a place at university or buying their first home. young and old. there is a deep and growing sense of concern amongst many families. telling young people that they won’t get the same life chances as their parents.000 young people pay their bus fare to college and buy books so they could stay on in education and get good qualifications. His Tory-led Government is making it harder and harder for the next generation to get on. David Cameron trebled tuition fees and promised that the maximum fee of £9.Kicking away the ladders David Cameron is betraying young people. At every stage. But it is not just on tuition fees where young people are being let down. rather than which offers the best course for them. Whether it’s a good school. The Future Jobs Fund. which helped thousands of young people in to jobs has been scrapped. David Cameron’s Government is kicking away the ladders that support the next generation. Labour opposes a system in which the university you go to is based more on your finances than it is on your talent and potential. Nowhere is this betrayal more apparent than over the issue of university tuition fees.

Based on what universities say they are charging is it possible that the shortfall in funding could be up to half a billion in 2014-15 according to independent House of Commons research. the Government would potentially need to cut student numbers by as much as 36. to cover the short fall in funding.500 for some or all of their courses.12 The Government slashed the overall resource budget for higher education.6 If the average fee is higher than £7. So not only will students have to contend with higher fees than ever before.1 billion to £4.7 Even if fees average £8.000 the shortfall will be £430 million over the next four years This leaves the Government with a difficult decision.500 then the Treasury.9 billion reduction by 2014/5.000 per year. and therefore the taxpayer.£9000 tuition fees: the rule. So far. Vince Cable himself has admitted that the Government “has two ways of dealing financially with collective overpricing: either cutting the teaching grant or student numbers”. 60 universities have already announced how much they plan to charge in fees and 42 of these have chosen to charge £9. For instance.600 then.000 in 2012/13. it can either claw back even more funding from universities or it can restrict the number of young people going to university in the first place. The Government expected £7. from £7.6bn.2 billion – a 40% or £2. not the exception • David Cameron promised that universities would only charge £9. the Treasury calculated the cost of funding student loans to be £3. there may also be far fewer university places to apply for.500 to be the average fee3. the average fee is well over the Government’s expected fee level.1 • But. 100% of the elite Russell Group universities who have so far declared their fees (13 out of the 17 institutions in England).000 – 70%. have gone for £9. This leaves the Government with a major problem. that if average fees were to be £8.13 The hardest hit was the teaching grant. cut by 80%. of the universities that have announced their planned fees.9 The Government has indicted it is likely to restrict student places. will be seriously out of pocket.4 • • Clawing back the extra cost of higher fees • The Government based its financial plans on a £7.2 In addition. excluding research funding.10 The House of Commons has calculated the potential implications for student numbers of differing levels of average fees11.8 The Government has already cut student numbers by 10.5 Based on this. But 95% of all the universities who have announced their fees intend to charge over £7. Universities have made it clear that they need to charge high fees to try and recoup the funding taken away through the cuts.000 tuition fees in ‘exceptional circumstances’.000. • • • • • 3 . and therefore reduce the number of loans it has to pay for.500 average fee.

• The saving the Government is assuming it will make with its scheme is offset by an increase in the cost for subsidising loans to students.500 additional public spending on the subsidy element for the loans will be around £450 million16. have calculated that Government looks set to save very little money from these cuts and could even end up spending more. has been busy reiterating that he does not have the power to set fees and cannot force universities to charge less.18 • • • • 4 . head of Offa. Independent voices. will fall by £1. excluding research. Sir Martin Harris. On the Government’s own assumptions about the average fee that they expect .3 billion in 2014-1514.3bn between 2010-11 and 2014-15. In total on the Government’s own figures.7 billion now to £3. all this pain will offer little gain to the taxpayer. But if fees are set higher than the Government assumed the savings will fall accordingly.£7. For example. It is clear that Ministers were unaware of the limitations of Offa to regulate on tuition fees. including the expert Higher Education Policy Institute. a real cut of 23%15. if average fees are around £8. the total public spending for higher education.17 However.500 .the cost of subsidy increases from £1.

and many in the children’s sector.24 Government talk of refocusing Sure Start back to its ‘original purpose’ has been shown for what it is. The Government has taken the total value of these grants and slashed it by 22% next year. there will be funding cuts of £50 per child for ‘early intervention’ services. on average across England.25 Labour Councils are already proving that Sure Start is for them a priority. withdrawn funding from 21 Sure Start centres between them.26 Tory controlled Bromley and Barnet have. childcare. in stark contrast. and Sure Start.19 But the Government has cut the Sure Start budget in real terms by 9%.Cuts to Sure Start Children’s Centres • • David Cameron promised to protect Sure Start. The House of Commons Library found that. despite the savage cuts to the councils budget. The EIG is made up of several different grants used to help vulnerable children. 27 • • 5 . 22 • • Labour: your voice in tough times • Labour created Sure Start and there are now over 3. is one of Sure Start’s greatest strengths.20 A recent 4Children and Daycare Trust survey predicted up to 250 Sure Start closures across the country this year.21 Education Secretary Michael Gove has also removed the ring-fence for Sure Start funding and wrapped it into a new “early intervention grant” (EIG). believes the fact it is a universal service.600 Sure Start centres across the country23 . Labour controlled Liverpool Council has granted its centres an extra year of protection and funding while it tries to plan a way to protect them in future.one for every community . Labour. simply a mask for cuts to a service they promised to protect.ensuring that every child gets the best start in life. free to all and with no stigma attached.

and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. conditional on attending classes. It increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%. The Government’s replacement scheme is ill-thought through.29 Such was the public and political backlash.31 The Government has also ignored the views of leading economists who urged the Government to use the budget to save the EMA and “continue a programme that not only benefits poorer students.38 • • • • 6 .36 Colleges are already reporting that the uncertainty over who will qualify for a bursary in future and how much they will receive is already having an impact on the numbers of young people applying to stay on in education.37 Labour councillors are fighting to maintain some funding to support young people to stay on in education now that the EMA has gone. the Government has chosen to ignore independent expert advice from the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the cost-effectiveness of the EMA and its positive impact on staying on rates. the replacement for the EMA doesn’t make the poorest pupils better off.000 young people34 to stay in education and gain qualifications and training to help them succeed. In reality. At a time when youth unemployment is at an all time high it is even more important that young people stay on and get good qualifications. such as the IFS. In Camden. announcing an EMA replacement scheme totalling £180m. Despite minister’s claims. the Government has partially retreated and instead announced cuts to the EMA budget of £380m. As a weekly payment. a saving of £0.28 But in October last year the Government announced the EMA budget would be cut by 90%.5billion. Labour councillors have put aside a contingency fund so they can continue to offer financial assistance to disadvantaged young people who want to continue learning. but the economy as a whole. are also warning that if colleges distribute the funding.”32 This month the OECD also called on the Government reintroduced the EMA. it could reduce transparency and certainty for young people and put them off applying to stay on in the first place.30 In cutting the EMA by two thirds.Scrapping the Education Maintenance Allowance • • David Cameron promised to protect the EMA. Concerned about the likely impact on education drop out rates of scrapping the scheme the OECD argues that the EMA is a better way to encourage participation in education and training post-16.35 Independent experts.33 • • • • Chaotic policy-making and its impact on young people • The EMA was a lifeline for young people from less well-off backgrounds who wanted to continue their education. rather than it going directly to students. EMA supported 643. the independent IFS has confirmed that students on FSM will be on average £370 per year worse off under this scheme.

The Tory-led Government needs to explain to young people worried about their future why this scheme was cut. According to the latest figures. The Tories need to explain why they have scrapped these opportunities. training or work experience placement to young people after 6 months unemployment. up 12. trebling tuition fees and scrapping the Future Jobs Fund. especially when it was showing signs of immediate success and getting people back into work.before the election.39 • In Government.Youth unemployment and scrapping the Future Jobs Fund • David Cameron praised the Future Jobs Fund .000 unemployed 16 to 24 year olds in the three months to February 2011. Labour is committed to doing everything we can to help young people – in contrast to this Tory-led Government which is hitting them with the triple whammy of abolishing EMA. That was a real commitment to young people struggling as a result of the global financial crisis.000 from the three months to November 2010.890 starts to Future Jobs Fund vacancies. According to the latest figures. That means that more than one in five young people are out of work. • This Government’s choices are already taking there toll. up until January 2011there were 91. David Cameron has scrapped the Future Jobs Fund and has offered no credible alternative.40 The Future Jobs Fund guaranteed a job. • • • • 7 . there were 963.a successful scheme to get young people into work .41 Those figures represent real jobs for real young people – who have benefited from Labour’s determination to take action.

Cuts direct from Downing Street will hit the average two adult household with children by £182 in 2011/12.48 Even before the Government’s VAT rise and spending cuts are taken into consideration families up and down the country are already feeling the squeeze. • • • • 8 .000 will this year lose £210 through reduced working tax credit payments as a result of measures in the October 2010 Spending Review. particularly in difficult times.50 With families feeling the strain. The child benefit freeze is real terms cut for families – irrespective of their earnings. Councils are also struggling with the effects of the Tory-led Government’s deep cuts to local authorities.47 Middle income families will also be hit particularly hard by cuts to public services.42 A reduction in the amount of support that parents can claim for childcare43 hits single parents particularly hard44 and could cost some families who claim the benefit up to £1500 a year.Squeeze on family budgets • The tax and benefit changes introduced at the beginning of April are hitting families hard.000 would not lose their tax credits. Inflation is currently running at twice the earnings annual growth rate.45 And despite a pre-election promise that families earning under £40. Analysis of local authority council tax charges for 2011/12 shows that Labour councils charge council taxpayers on average £207 less than Tory councils and £40 less than Lib Dem councils. By investing in a flexible Tax Credit system – including the introduction of the Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit in 2003 – we provided work incentives by topping up the incomes of those on low wages and of families raising children.000 and £30. hitting families in their pockets49. Analysis has shown that low and middle income families consume almost as twice as much in public services than the wealthiest.51 We are proud of Labour’s record in supporting families. Labour is their voice in tough times.that’s still double the Bank of England’s target. And even though the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) annual rate of inflation has fallen to 4% .000) households with incomes between £12.46 the Tory-led Government has admitted that over three-quarters of a million (775.

Exeter 11. http://www. The figure we have used for each institution is shown below. For those universities which have given a range of possible tuition fees we have used the median figure for the range . For those universities which have stated.” Vince Cable. Birmingham 4. Newcastle 24. protects the financial interests of graduates and taxpayers. Liverpool John Moores 21. http://www. Oxford Brookes 27. and they are the figures that I know people are concerned about. City University London 8.uk/news/speeches/vince-cable-hefceconference-2011 4 3 So far of the 56 universities which have announced their planned fees. http://www. Brighton and Sussex Medical School 6.org/index. speech to CentreForum. 7 April 2011. That’s the absolute maximum. “ David Cameron. Royal Agricultural College 9 .php?option=com_content&view=article&id=221:david-cameron&catid=35:recent-events&Itemid=59 2 1 BBC online. Aston 2. for example.500 because it delivers sufficient resources for a high-quality student experience.uk/news/education-12880840 “We set the higher amount at £9. Reading 29. some universities will be allowed to charge £9. Hull 12. Lancaster 16. Leeds 17.bis. Queen Mary. These are the headline figures. Leicester 18. Essex 10. HEFCE annual conference.for example in the case of Coventry university which has announced it will charge between £4600-£9000 the median figure for our calculation is £6800. ‘under £9000’ we have used the the lowest fee level possible: £6000. Loughborough 22.000 to allow increased investment in our world-class universities. Bath 3. We then envisaged an average fee of £7. the average fee is £8657.bbc. Kent 15. Imperial 13.000. Nottingham 25. Universities charging £9000: 1. 15 April 2011. University of London 28. Liverpool 20. Durham 9. Cambridge 7.centreforum.co. Keele 14. Oxford 26. To calculate the average fee.gov.Notes “In exceptional circumstances. Lincoln 19. Manchester 23. 8 December 2010. and means we do not have to reduce university places. we have used the figure given by universities themselves for their planned fees levels. Bradford 5.

12. Royal Holloway Sheffield St George’s. 31.8500 Sources: BBC online.8500 London Met is charging less than £6000 for some courses..30. .co.000 2 at 7950 = 15. 17.500 Manchester Met. 33. 38. 11.000 .6000 Hertfordshire are charging between £7. £8.co. 42.bbc.390 Northumbria. 13 April.500 University Campus Suffolk has said it will charge £8. £8000-9000 – 8.500. 13.500.000 to £7. 14.000. £8. 10. It said that the “average [fee] will be £6. £6000-9000 . 40.500 – 8.bbc. 2.with a lower fee of £7.000 3 at 8000 = 24. 39. 3. – 8000 Teeside.6500 London South Bank has announced fees of £8. considerably lower in others. Anglia Ruskin are considering £8000. 35.800 – 7.6800 Derby University is setting its fees at less than £7. 41. Lincoln.” .bbc. 18 April 2011. 5.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-13112575 Press Association. http://www.390. considerably higher in some [courses].uk/news/education 12880840?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Universities charging under £9000 for some or all of their courses (the underlined figure is the figure we have used for our calculation): 1. London SOAS Southampton Surrey Sussex University of Central Lancashire University College Falmouth University College London University of East London University of the Arts Warwick Source: BBC online. 13 April. 7.uk/news/education 12880840?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter BBC online.8000 University of Portsmouth has announced it plans to charge fees of £8. Figure used: £8000 Bishop Grosseteste University College. . has said the fees for the majority of its courses will be set at £7.000.390 10 .390 = 8390 1 at 7800 = 7800 = 519. – 7500 Birkbeck.500 for foundation degrees. 16.800 St Mary’s University College. – 8. 36. 32. . 9.000 1 at 6800 = 6800 1 at 6000 = 6. 18.000 1 at 6500 = 6500 1 at 8.co.500 – 8.7500 Coventry have announced plans for fees between £4600-9000.900 6 at 8500 = 51. £8. 4. . 37. http://www.7950 Kingston.500 Southampton Solent are charging £7.500. 15. 19 April 2011 So this equals: 42 at 9k = 378.000 2 at 7500 = 15. http://www.500 – 8.500 Leeds Met has said it will charge £8500.400 and £8. 8. 34. 6. – 7950 Huddersfield has announced £7950. Twickenham is to charge £8.500 for the majority of courses.

” Vince Cable.uk/news/speeches/vince-cable-hefceconference-2011 6 “On the Treasury model. and do not believe we need to. 20 December 2010.coi. the cost of funding student loans would be £3. http://www. Vice-chancellors were told the government could not allow this to happen and the Treasury would claw back any excess spending on student loans from university teaching grants.000 to allow increased investment in our world-class universities. universities and colleges should work on the basis that this pulse of additional entrant places will not not be repeated in 2012/3 and so the extra 10. protects the financial interests of graduates and taxpayers.6bn.500 because it delivers sufficient resources for a high-quality student experience. HEFCE annual conference. We then envisaged an average fee of £7.500 the Treasury will be out of pocket.gov. 2011.bbc.” Vince Cable.uk/news/education/education-news/university-cuts-a-kick-in-the-teeth-2165302. 6 April 2011. letter to Higher Education Funding Council for England. On the contrary. “ BBC online.aspx?ReleaseID=419032&NewsAreaID=2 9 8 “As a provisional planning assumption./60 = £8657 5 “We set the higher amount at £9.uk/content/Detail.html 11 .000 or even £8.uk/news/education-12435602 7 "My main point here is that Government essentially has two ways of dealing financially with collective over-pricing: either cutting the teaching grant or student numbers." Vince Cable. 12 February 2011. so that university independence is enhanced and competition operates.000 places will not be repeated. in The Independent. http://www. speech to HEFCE annual conference. 7 April 2011.independent. http://www. http://nds. We are very reluctant to go down either route.bis. But if average fees are more like £8. and means we do not have to reduce university places.co.gov. I want Government to step back at the earliest opportunity.co.

but for reasons of financial control. 28 October 2010 13 "This means the overall resource budget for Higher Education. there is control over numbers.700 £8.000 47. the government still has a degree of control over numbers.800 £7. and it isn’t just a question of access they have to satisfy a condition that they don’t have high drop out rates. will reduce from £7.7billion in 2010-11 to £3. a real cut of 23%” ‘Changes to higher education funding and student support from 2012-13’ . we’d like to set universities free.3billion in 2014-15.700 £11.5 billion in 2014-15.bis.000 29.000 36. 8% are assumed not to continue to year two and a further 5% are assumed not to continue to year three.2 billion.9 billion.000 38.” Vince Cable.100 £8. Adding these two elements together means total public funding for higher education (excluding research) is expected to fall from £8.400 £12.800 £11.000 26.000 10. The average public sector cost per student is £1.000 students are assumed to start courses and take out loans each year. See footnote 8. Sources: BIS student loan ready reckoner model and House of Commons Library estimates 12 “Browne assumed the Spending Review would cut 80% of the annual teaching grant that is currently allocated to universities via the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce). That is to say that if universities set a fee and they provide the support arrangements for students that I am legally empowered to require.500 £11.900 £8. This teaching funding allocation amounts to £3.000 41.100 £11.200 £8. there are a variety of mechanisms open to the government to make sure that fees do not rise to unrealistic levels unrelated to costs.600 £7.300 £12.650 plus the resource costs of loans. 320." BIS press release. 2011 15 See footnote 14.House of Commons Research Paper.000 7.8billion in 2010-11 to £7.000 14. or £2.200 £12. a 40%.1 billion to £4.100 £12.10 “Well there are different mechanisms available to us.000 44.gov. we don’t want to be in that world.000 20.5bn and Browne recommends that this should be reduced to just £700m.300 £8." Million+ Briefing: Financial implications of the Comprehensive Spending Review & Browne Review.000 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% Note: Assumes a 'breakeven' tuition fee of £7. 16 17 But Sir Martin said: “It is very important that everybody understands that Offa is not a fee regulator.000 where up to this level a £100 increase in fees is accompanied by a £100 cut in direct funding.200 £11. 02 March 2011 11 [House of commons library figures on potential implications for student numbers] Student loans: Implications of variations in loan assumptions Cuts in new entrants needed to keep public spending constant Number % Total loan £11.000 17. http://www.000 £12.500 £8.400 £8.400 £11.700 £7. All fee loans above this level have no effect on direct public funding. then that is what will happen. reduction by 2014-15.600 £11.000 £8.500 Assumed fee loan £7.900 £9.800 £8. 20 October 2010.000 23. excluding research funding.900 £12.000 3.” Asked if ministers had been aware of his limited powers when plans to treble the cap on fees were approved by 12 .000 33. 10 March.300 £11. Sky News. there is.uk/news/topstories/2010/Oct/BIS-CSR 14 “The cost of the subsidy element of student loans which are expected to increase from £1.600 £8.

uk/478-1905/HEPI-publishes-analysis-ofGovernment-concessions-on-HE-funding-and-student-finance.” David Cameron.794. National Childbirth Trust message (pre-election). if any. the chancellor.0 -11. 11 january 2010.“ Financial Times.ac. http://www.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_Supporting_parents. 20 October 2010. The Independent.conservatives.html#axzz1CirIxH4I 21 “250 Sure Start Children's Centres Face Closure Within a Year” 4Children press notice.0 -581.0 2.Parliament.0 -311.” Higher Education Policy Institute.483. http://www. 8 March 2011 “It is apparent that whether or not the government's assumptions are correct. and indeed that the government's new proposals are as likely to cost as to save public money. This is a highly approxim ate estim ate of theim pact per potential beneficiary. 28 January 2011. we back Sure Start.212.uk/information/show/ref/2302 22 E IGallocations and com parisons 2010-11 'baseline allocations' after cuts A llocation Com parison w ith 2010/11 original allocation Allocation 2010-11 prices £m illion E arly Intervention G rant 2011-12 allocations C om parison w ith 2010/11 origina 2010-11 allocations before cuts in area based grants £m illion C ash £m illion 2010-11 prices £m illion D ifference in cash term s a £m illion % Per capita D ifference in real term s a £m illion % Per capita C ash £m illion £m illion D ifference in cash term s a % Per capita England 2.483. Supporting Parents speech.hepi.1% -£30 -311.0 2. D fE 13 . is being reduced by 9 per cent in real terms.nct. http://www.4children.” The Times.aspx “We are strongly committed to Sure Start Children’s Centres” David Cameron.1% -£30 2. “The Sure Start programme. will be marginal. 14 December 2010.com/cms/s/0/c83bb9b8-dc76-11df-a0b900144feabdc0. and for that reason we think it would be wise to assume that savings.8% -£50 (a) Total differencedivided by the estim ated num ber of residents agedunder 20 in the m id-2009 populationestim ates. But to set out how we will improve Sure Start. http://www.4 2. I would like to know whether these centres will continue to receive funding? David Cameron: Yes. It's a disgrace that Gordon Brown has been trying to frighten people about this.org.ft. its calculations of future savings are extremely sensitive to the assumption that made.169. he replied: “I think that the powers of Offa became clearer as this debate went on and they were of course set out in 2004 in a different environment and for different reasons. He's the Prime Minister of this country but he's been scaring people about something that really matters. http://www. told the Commons on Wednesday he had succeeded in finding “more resources for our schools and for the early years education of our children”. N ote: All figures includedistrict council allocations w here relevant Prices adjusted to 2010-11 figures using H MTreasuryG D Pdeflators at D ecem ber 2010 Source: Early intervention grant allocations.html 19 18 “I want not just to repeat our commitment to keep Sure Start. 5 May 2010 20 “George Osborne. the education system for pre-school children.org. But education is in fact being cut hard at every level.0 -11.6 -20.uk/active/network/election2010/conservative_party_response_to_nct_manifesto Questioner: As a parent who relies heavily on Sure Start centres for the educational and social needs of my child.

http://www.co. http://www.uk/en/Parents/Preschooldevelopmentandlearning/NurseriesPlaygroupsReceptionClasses/DG_1 73054 “One of the great advantages of children's centres is that they do not stigmatise families because they are available to all.8m in 2012-13.co.barnet. http://www.gov. Decisions of Cabinet.co.uk/news/1056163/Axe-falls-Barnets-Phase-Threechildrens-centres/ "Cllr Helena Hart welcomed the support for Model X – this would ensure the future of the Stonegrove Centre and would be a prime example of the Council meeting growing need. 14 February 2011.BROMLEY__Council_approves_more_than_150_budget_cuts_totalli ng___33m/ 28 26 23 24 25 27 “We’ve looked at Educational Maintenance Allowances.000 in 2011-2012 and £2. Sure Start funding is now included in a new unringfenced Early Intervention Grant.uk/democracy/meetings/executivemeetingdetail. Further savings could be made in 2012/13 by reducing to 3 centres in total. 2 in areas of deprivation plus one boroughwide centre for children with disabilities..newsshopper. 11 August 2010.aspx?ID=6329 "Having just three children and family centres across the borough rather than the 23 originally planned – saving £600. http://committeepapers.” LB Bromley budget papers: http://cds. http://www. increasing its focus on those who need its help most and better involving organisations with a proven track record in parenting interventions.gov. 23 February 2011.” David Cameron. Decisions already taken by the CYPPH to reduce phase 3 from 7 to 2 centres releasing £600k in 2011/12.uk/news/8880874. no we don’t have any plans to get rid of them.” David Cameron.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_Supporting_parents.nurseryworld. Supporting Parents speech.uk/news/976871/Cameron-sets-plans-new-SureStart/ “There is a criticism sometimes of Sure Start that a great new centre is established and the sharp-elbowed middle classes – like my wife and me – get in there and get all the services." News Shopper.early intervention. something that families tell us is very important.. The Cabinet Member stated that this was driven by the need to target resources where they were most needed.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.direct.conservatives.uk/news/article-1301910/David-Camerondefends-cuts-Sure-Start-scheme-children.DirectGov.uk/liverpool-news/regionalnews/2011/03/19/liverpool-sure-start-children-s-centres-given-12-month-lifeline-100252-28363676/ “Funding is set to be withdrawn from all Phase Three children's centres in the London Borough of Barnet after costsaving proposals were approved by a council cabinet meeting last week.co.html#ixzz1CbwnYY74 Sure Start has lost its focus. emphasising that universal provision was no longer an affordable option.dailymail.bromley.” Anne Longfield. But to set out how we will improve Sure Start by taking it back to its original purpose . Daily Mail.” Nursery World. 11 January 2010. amongst the most deprived areas. Too narrow a focus on deprived families may jeopardise this.5 billion." Barnet Council.” 14 . saving around £0. So today I want not just to repeat our commitment to keep Sure Start.aspx Liverpool has chosen to extend its consultation period for a year to save its Sure Start centres from cuts and try and find a solution to funding them over the long term. Liverpool Daily Post.” David Cameron. and we would urge Mr Cameron to maintain a universal approach. ‘Cameron Direct’. 28 February 2010.nurseryworld. http://www.asp?MeetingID=6151 “The original plan was to create 23 centres across three phases. 6 January 2010 29 “In the context of raising the participation age. http://www.liverpooldailypost. The people who need it most – disadvantaged and dysfunctional families – are not getting enough of the benefit. March 19 2011. there will be unit cost reductions in the 16 to 19 participation budget and the support currently provided by Education Maintenance Allowances will be focused on the most disadvantaged children.co. http://www. 11 January 2010.

education. December 2010. and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. But over the long term. And. Department for Education press notice. growth depends above all on the skills and qualifications of the workforce. aged 16 to 19. the undersigned economists. The real question is whether the benefits. it would still represent a transfer of resources to low-income households with children. the IFS concluded that even looking at only the narrow economic benefits of EMA – the higher wages that its recipients would go on to enjoy in future – these are likely to exceed the costs in the long run." Haroon Chowdry and Carl Emmerson. is not a deadweight loss as the government claims.pdf The Government today announced a new £180 million bursary scheme to help the most vulnerable 16-19 years olds continue in full-time education. Unemployment for young people without qualifications is already about 40%. Virtually all government programmes. 32 15 .org. as the chancellor will be aware.uk/publications/5370 We. and has instead argued that the abolition of EMA is justified by high levels of "deadweight" – ie that many young people in receipt of the EMA would remain in education even without it. extensive quantitative evaluations of the EMA have shown that it has significantly improved both staying-on rates and qualifications for students from poorer backgrounds. to stay on in education (Hughes calls for £100m to help poorer students. And this takes no account of the wider social and economic benefits. The chancellor has promised a budget for growth. and concluded that its impact was "substantial". Mr Osborne should listen to Save EMA's Deal's a Deal campaign and provide funding for the 300. moreover.gov.000 teenagers enrolled on two-year courses who expected to receive the EMA in their second year. On this. that the EMA significantly improved their educational outcomes.ifs. The argument that there is no alternative to scrapping EMA is false. Comprehensive Spending Review. support the Save EMA campaign and oppose the government's plans to abolish the education maintenance allowance. which may in its own right represent a valuable policy objective. So the EMA. http://www. it increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%.000 unskilled. but the economy as a whole. the Treasury estimates that there will be only around 600.gov. of the EMA exceed its costs overall. even if the EMA had no impact on educational outcomes. have some deadweight cost. it is not a sound economic argument for abolishing EMA it could equally be argued that the government should not vaccinate children against meningitis or polio. Econometric evidence from researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies.uk/inthenews/pressnotices/a0076112/180-million-new-bursary-scheme-to-help-themost-vulnerable-16-19-year-olds 30 31 “the EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults who were eligible to receive it. Institute for Fiscal Studies. unqualified jobs in our economy by 2020. even the most successful. We urge the chancellor to use the opportunity of the budget to reconsider the government's plans and to continue a programme that not only benefits poorer students. 14 March). published in 2008. On a day when figures show youth unemployment at an unacceptable level. October 2010." "Those who receive EMA and would have stayed in education regardless of it might still benefit educationally through other channels. since the vast majority of children wouldn't contract these diseases anyway. showed.hmtreasury. subsequent IFS research. for example through better attendance. "Moreover. the last thing our country and those who govern us should be doing is removing or cutting support to that very age group. http://www. or more study time as a result of not having to take on a parttime job. More importantly. 28 March 2011. the costs of EMA are completely offset. which costs the government £550m. a scheme which helps and encourages students from poorer backgrounds in England. But even if this is true. economic and social. At the very least. http://cdn. Abolishing the EMA – which enables many young people to gain the qualifications that they will need in the future – is not a recipe for long-term growth.George Osborne. found that the EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults. "The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found. In particular. The government has chosen to ignore this rigorous and independent evidence.uk/sr2010_completereport. published in 2005.

co. and fellow at the New Economics Foundation John Van Reenen.ifs. The system will also need to be carefully designed to avoid perverse incentives. ‘Economic Policy Reforms: Going for Growth 2011’.” OECD. Montague Burton professor of industrial relations.tes. any children on free school meals are currently entitled to the full £1. Julian Gravatt. assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges.James Mills.190. to the tune of £370 a year. IPPR Robert Rowthorn. Cambridge University Marcus Miller. This could have an impact on their decision to stay on in the first place. their household income cannot total more than £16. http://www. Director of Prime (Policy Research in Macroeconomics). a social enterprise helping the long-term unemployed in Everton.and if so. In other words.uk/article. 29 March 2011. Former chief economist at the Cabinet Office and director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research David Blanchflower.” FE Focus. how much.uk/publications/5529 Colleges are braced for a fall in enrolments as students face months of uncertainty over whether they will be eligible for the Government’s new bursaries. 27 January 2011. Dartmouth College. IFS. Many unanswered questions over EMA successor. 13 January 2011. 29 March 2011. Emeritus professor of economics.org.170 for EMA.on average.camdennewjournal. http://www.pdf 34 House of Commons briefing note.guardian. Professor of economics. Bruce V Rauner professor of economics. Many unanswered questions over EMA successor.co.” Haroon Chowdry and Luke Sibieta. http://www. executive director of Advocacy International. Senior economist and associate director for economic policy. USA. http://www. 13 March 2011. I think it will undoubtedly have an effect on enrolment for September. “But if the discretion is used. University of Cambridge Paul Gregg. 16 . children with household incomes less than £20. to be eligible for free school meals.oecd.aspx?storycode=6075484 Camden councillors have set aside an £80. http://www. Professor of economics. Save EMA Jonathan Portes. and University of Stirling Ann Pettifor. He said: “Colleges have been running open days and having prospectuses printed since last autumn. if their circumstances do not change. By comparison.pdf 35 “Under the current arrangements. University of Warwick The Guardian. University of Bristol William Brown.170 per year). It must be the case that most such students would be worse off under the bursary scheme that they would have been under the EMA .” Haroon Chowdry and Luke Sibieta. then they will not know. LSE Tony Dolphin. ‘UK Country Notes’. said members were trying to attract students without knowing how much support would be available until June at the earliest. http://www.ifs. when applying for a place in post16 education. http://www.org/dataoecd/25/54/47471946.parliament. 7 April 2011. IFS. whether they will receive a bursary .000 “contingency fund” to help 16 and 17-year-olds due to start courses this year who would have been eligible for the payments of up to £30 through EMA.org. Professor of economics. “Mr Cameron and his entourage descended on Merseystride.817 are entitled to a full EMA payment of £30 per week (or £1. 1 April 2011. it could reduce transparency and certainty for students.uk/education/2011/mar/16/budget-to-save-the-ema 33 “Encourage participation in secondary education by reintroducing the Education Maintenance Allowance.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-05778.uk/publications/5529 “if students must apply for the bursary after enrolment. Camden New Journal.com/news/2011/jan/cash-lifeline-studentswho-lose-ema-camdens-councillors-set-aside-%C2%A380000-contingency-f 39 38 36 37 Conservative leader David Cameron visited Liverpool and pledged Tory support for continuing job creation schemes aimed at helping young people who have “slipped through the cracks” get back into work.

conservatives.7% of people who claim the childcare support are lone parents. (Direct Gov.pdf 42 Figures from the House of Commons Library show that.“And. http://blog. Hansard.000. 16 November 2010. Department for Work and Pensions.” Theresa May. We think that tax credits provide a vital boost for families across the country. http://www.000 and £30. House of Commons written answer. [23983] Justine Greening: Greening 775.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/TaxCredits/Gettingstarted/whoqualifies/Childrenandtaxcredits/DG_ 073803) 46 45 “Labour lies on child tax credits “In the last couple of days the Labour Party briefly paid for a misleading advert on the popular MumsNet site about our plans for tax credits. Column 774W-775W Mr Davidson: Davidson To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average reduction in working tax credits for households on incomes between £12. We are being honest about the challenges we face and how we will deal with them. compared to the annual uprating in line with RPI. “He said the Government’s Future Jobs Fund programme – aimed at 16 to 24-year-olds struggling to find work – was a ‘good scheme.000 per annum resulting from implementation of proposals contained in the comprehensive spending review in the Spending Review period. Labour Market Statistics. [23984] Justine Greening: Greening Households with incomes between £12. It’s time Labour did the same. p. 12 44 According to independent research by the Resolution Foundation 63. Until April 2011 parents with two or more children could get the maximum support of £240 a week. Table 3. http://www.000 and £30. But Labour’s irresponsibility now means that we have to look again at what we can afford as a country. Childcare support information. I think it’s important that people know the truth. We don’t think that is affordable anymore. All the main parties agree that public spending will have to be cut in future years.000 or less will be affected by our policy.000 households with incomes between £12.pdf 41 Young Person’s Guarantee Official Statistics. “Our priority is to find a way to get spending under control that is fair and protects the poorest. “So I want to be very clear.000 or more.dwp.000 and £30.40 this year.000 per year whose working tax credit payments will be reduced as a result of the implementation of proposals in the comprehensive spending review. 6. 11 February 2010.direct. But now that the support has been cut to 70%. We support tax credits and we will keep them. but we are now paying them to families earning over £50. The Blue Blog. House of Commons written answer. 13 April 2011.statistics. 13 April 2011. That means making tough choices.000 and £30.000 and receiving working tax credits will receive a reduced working tax credit payment in 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively as a result of the comprehensive spending review. http://research.com/index. then Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary.000 and receiving working tax credits will receive a reduced working tax credit payment of £210 and £290 in 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively as a result of the comprehensive spending review. Hansard. this has fallen to £210 a week – a loss of £30 a week and £1560 a year.gov. No families with a combined household income of £40.80 and a family with three children £75. Mr Cameron said he had been ‘inspired’ by what he had seen. p.gov.php/2010/02/11/labour-lies-on-child-tax-credits/ 47 Alison McGovern: McGovern To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of households with earnings between £12.gov. 16 November 2010. 31 March 2010 40 Office for National Statistics. and it is irresponsible for Labour to be scaremongering in this way and worrying families needlessly. the freeze in child benefit will cost a family with one child £33.000 and 810.uk/pdfdir/lmsuk0411. Tax credits are designed to help families on low incomes. after meeting young people who had secured work at the Great Homer Street site assembling and selling furniture.uk/asd/asd1/jsa/ypg/ypg_apr2011. “They say our policy will take away tax credits from families with incomes of £31. That is a lie. 43 Spending Review 2010. so we have said that under a Conservative Government these families would stop receiving tax credits.’” Liverpool Daily Post. “We are all in this together – we need to pay off our debts so our children don’t have to. Column 775W 17 .

p. The population in England is 51.305 £1. November 2010.809.105 18 . 4 50 Tory-led Government cuts to funding to local authorities mean that in 2011/12 the Revenue Spending Power (RSP) of local authorities will fall by £2.700 a year. It demonstrates that that in areas where Labour controls the unitary or top-tier local authority. ‘Squeezed Britain’.900.500 a week in the top quintile.000. The distributional analysis set out in the October Spending Review suggests that households in quintile 2 (the middle of the LME group) consume public services with a value of around £10. The average cut per person this year is £47. households pay on average £207 less per year than those living in Tory top-tier local authority areas and £40 less than those in Lib Dem top-tier local authority areas.88. Top tier/ unitary control LAB CON LD NOC Average council tax per dwelling £1.000. (based on control of the top-tier county council in 2 tier areas). compared with just £5. The cut for the average family with two adults and children is therefore £182.48 “More generally.098 £1. p. 9 49 Office for National Statistics. LMEs [low to middle earners] will be hit harder than higher earners by cuts to public services.138 £1. 51 The table below shows the average council tax per dwelling in councils controlled by each party. Labour Market Statistics. 13 April 2011.” Resolution Foundation.480.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful