(Councillor G Watt and Councillor D Knowles, having both declared prejudicial interests, left the chamber during the vote on this item)

Proposed by Councillor Phil Gilchrist

Seconded by Councillor Tom Harney

(1)  This Council recognises that the Young People's Learning Agency has been able to provide many of Wirral's young people with financial support to enable them to study at schools, the Birkenhead Sixth Form College and the Wirral Metropolitan College and other bodies.

(2)  Council understands that the Government has set out to replace this financial support with an enhanced learner support fund, managed locally and targeted to support more closely those young people facing the most significant financial barriers to participation.

(3)  Council recognises that consideration of the most effective way of supporting young people was reviewed in 2007, when the move from seeing EMA as an ‘incentive’ to replacing it with offering financial assistance to youngsters from poorer backgrounds was first identified.

(4)  Council appreciates that local schools, colleges and training institutions may be in a better position than a national agency to determine the needs of individual students but that the replacement scheme needs to be adequately resourced and effectively set up.

(5)  Council also welcomes that fact the Government is to fund an increase in educational places for 16 to 19 year olds and is raising the compulsory participation age to 18 by the end of the Parliament, meaning thousands more young people receive free education.

(6)  Council believes that the debate in Parliament on 19th January 2011 showed a growing recognition of the need to ensure that any replacement for the EMA needs to be more extensive than originally envisaged.

(7)  Council believes that:

(a)  There is a need to ensure that students who currently receive support should be able to receive it until their current course ends.

(b)  A realistic assessment should be made of the resources required for the support fund, by gathering information from the schools, colleges and providers involved.

(c)  A locally managed scheme needs sufficient resources to manage it sensitively and effectively.

(d)  The Government should be lobbied to maximise the amount available to support students from low income families.

(e)  Council further thanks the local MPs for their work to date, would welcome their continuing support and assistance and requests that they be informed of the views of this Council.

Amendment submitted in accordance with Standing Order 7(2).

Proposed by Councillor Chris Meaden

Seconded by Councillor Walter Smith

Delete paragraphs (2) to (6) and insert:

(2)  Council recognises that the sum allocated by the Government for a replacement for the Educational Maintenance Allowance is a derisory amount, currently set at just £26m, compared to the £560m previously invested by Labour in helping young people from poorer homes continue their studies.

(3)  Council notes that even if the Government is persuaded to triple that amount in order to buy off their Liberal Democrat colleagues, the amount is still derisory, and research by the University and College Union suggested that 70% of students in the poorest areas would drop out of college if their EMA was stopped.

(4)  Council is not remotely surprised that the Liberal Democrats are showing extreme unease about the consequences of cancelling Educational Maintenance Grants and trying to make the best of a policy which brings shame to their members.

(5)  Council therefore demands that the Government rethink this decision and restore the Educational Maintenance Grants forthwith.

The amendment was put and lost (22:39)

The motion was put and carried  (39:22)

Resolved (39:22) –

(1)  This Council recognises that the Young People's Learning Agency has been able to provide many of Wirral's young people with financial support to enable them to study at schools, the Birkenhead Sixth Form College and the Wirral Metropolitan College and other bodies.

(2)  Council understands that the Government has set out to replace this financial support with an enhanced learner support fund, managed locally and targeted to support more closely those young people facing the most significant financial barriers to participation.

(3)  Council recognises that consideration of the most effective way of supporting young people was reviewed in 2007, when the move from seeing EMA as an ‘incentive’ to replacing it with offering financial assistance to youngsters from poorer backgrounds was first identified.

(4)  Council appreciates that local schools, colleges and training institutions may be in a better position than a national agency to determine the needs of individual students but that the replacement scheme needs to be adequately resourced and effectively set up.

(5)  Council also welcomes that fact the Government is to fund an increase in educational places for 16 to 19 year olds and is raising the compulsory participation age to 18 by the end of the Parliament, meaning thousands more young people receive free education.

(6)  Council believes that the debate in Parliament on 19th January 2011 showed a growing recognition of the need to ensure that any replacement for the EMA needs to be more extensive than originally envisaged.

(7)  Council believes that:

(a)  There is a need to ensure that students who currently receive support should be able to receive it until their current course ends.

(b)  A realistic assessment should be made of the resources required for the support fund, by gathering information from the schools, colleges and providers involved.

(c)  A locally managed scheme needs sufficient resources to manage it sensitively and effectively.

(d)  The Government should be lobbied to maximise the amount available to support students from low income families.

(e)  Council further thanks the local MPs for their work to date, would welcome their continuing support and assistance and requests that they be informed of the views of this Council.