Opposition Day — Education Maintenance Allowance — 19 Jan 2011 at 18:51

Nick Herbert MP, Arundel and South Downs voted in favour of scrapping the education maintenance allowance (EMA) in England.

The majority of MPs voted in favour of the Government's plan to scrap the education maintenance allowance (EMA) in England.

The majority of MPs rejected an opposition motion which had said:

  • That this House:
  • believes that disadvantaged young people should gain greater access to further and higher education;
  • recognises the valuable role that the education maintenance allowance (EMA) has played in supporting young people from less well-off backgrounds to participate and succeed in education;
  • further recognises how EMA has supported choice for students in post-16 education, allowing them to travel to the best institution for their studies, which is of particular importance in rural areas; further notes that EMA is used by the majority of recipients to fund travel to college, as well as books and equipment, and allows recipients to focus on their studies rather than taking a part-time job;
  • notes that EMA has been retained in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland;
  • further notes research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies stating that EMA costs are completely offset by its benefits in raising participation;
  • further notes the inquiry into educational access announced by the Education Select Committee; and
  • calls on the Government to rethink its decision on EMA, retaining practical support to improve access to, interest in and participation in further and higher education.

This vote was immediately followed by one in which MPs approved an alternative motion on the subject of educational support which had been put forward by the Government.

A Government press release on plans to end EMA, issued on the day of the vote, stated[1]:

  • EMA costs over £560 million per year with administration costs amounting to £36 million. The Government believes it must target its resources to those most in need.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con273 (+1 tell) 0089.5%
DUP0 5062.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Lab0 241 (+2 tell)094.2%
LDem44 (+1 tell) 2082.5%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP0 2066.7%
SNP0 3050.0%
Total:317 258090.0%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
John LeechManchester, WithingtonLDemaye
David WardBradford EastLDemaye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive