Mr Livingstone has been a long standing supporter of the Save EMA campaign, personally endorsing the campaign over a year ago (as seen below):

Students in sixth forms or further education colleges will receive the money if their household income is below £31,000 a year.

About 85,000 students in London were receiving the allowance when it was cut, and Boris Johnson has publicly called on the government to think again.

The London EMA would be based mainly on redirecting existing funds in colleges and the capital’s universities. This includes the bursary fund the government introduced to replace the EMA and money spent on outreach activities by London universities.

Livingstone’s campaign team say local authorities will also be asked to contribute, and it may be topped up from the Greater London Authority’s budget.

This is great news for tens of thousands of the poorest teenagers in London; it means that they can once again take education as far as their ability lets them and not their ability to pay.

This means Boris will now have to put his money where his mouth to show whether he is all mouth and no trousers when it comes to standing up for London’s poorest teenagers.

It took Boris 6 months to pick up the phone to say he opposed the abolition of the EMA to Michael Gove, who is a London MP. Since then he has said more words in Greek and Latin than he has on this issue. Its time he finds his voice on EMA.

Boris has defended a minority of the wealthiest bankers on a regular basis, and only once has spoken out on EMA, and then only briefly. Its time Boris shows he is the Mayor of London not the Mayor of bankers.

This will not only set down a marker for other mayoral contests across the country, but has shown it is not about money, but about priorities when it comes to down whether teenagers should have EMA payments.

This is a bold and smart announcement by Mr Livingstone today. Ken Livingstone has made it clear, if you want to Save EMA you vote Ken in May.

The below chart shows the impact the education maintenance allowance (EMA) had on those classed as ‘NEET’ after it was rolled out nationally in 2004 (the red dashes signifying its introduction).

The importance of Quarter 4 data is that it shows those teenagers who have not enrolled into further education after September of that year. Today’s data includes the total number of NEET young people in Oct-Dec 2011. And includes both new NEETs and people who have been NEET for some time.

What the below figure shows is that the steady upwards trend in 16-18 year old classed as NEET was checked by EMA and began a slow decline in the Q4 figures:

(Source: Data from the 2011 Labour Force Survey for Quarter 3 showing those not in education, employment or training.)

Although these NEET figures could also be influenced by a flagging economy, when combined with the October AOC survey that showed enrolment at 49% of colleges was down and last month’s unemployment figures showed an increase in 16-17 year old unemployment; today’s NEET figures are further indicative proof that scrapping EMA was the wrong decision.

The EMA was a tried and tested government scheme. It was recognised by a plethora of organisations, like the independent IFS, who argued that EMA help to get those classed as NEET into the work place. This is how the IFS described EMA:

“The EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults who were eligible to receive it.

In particular, it increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65 to 69 per cent, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54 to 61 per cent.

The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset.”

Today’s sad news that the number of NEETs is up is further proof that scrapping the EMA was a massive mistake by this government. Previous Q4 figures have shown a steady decline in the number of NEETs and are indicative proof that EMA worked.

Youth unemployment and the number of NEETs is a ticking time bomb, but sadly this government is cutting the wrong wire. The EMA was a tried and tested scheme that worked. The government have replaced it with one that risks costing the tax payer more in the long run and does less for those who need it.

The government’s plan on 16 and 17 year olds is a smoke and mirrors way for a poor attempt at reversing their policy on EMA, and instead risks wasting more government money.

The average annual payment to EMA recipients receiving £30 a week was £792.01 (over an average of 26.4 weekly payments). The contractors under the government’s new scheme will be paid £2,200 per teenager. When this £126M scheme is combined with the £180m EMA replacement scheme it totals over £300M which is close to what it would of cost to keep the £30 payment scheme for the poorest teenagers.

The steep rise in the youth unemployment rate is what has sparked this government initiative.

The below  chart shows the spike that has occurred in the youth unemployment rate for those aged under 17 since EMA was scrapped last September:

• January’s unemployment figures show that since October 2011 Under 17 year-olds unemployment is up by two thirds, that’s a 6% change in increase on the same time period last year.
• For 17 year-olds unemployment in January was up by 4% since October 2011 and 9% since November 2011.

The graph below shows the percentage change each month since October:

The government is right that youth unemployment is a ticking time bomb, something we at Save EMA have said all along, but sadly this government is cutting the wrong wire. This new scheme is a shoddy patchwork version of the EMA that risks costs the tax payer more and does less.

The Education Maintenance Allowance was a tried and tested government scheme.  Recognised by a plethora of organizations, like the independent IFS, who argued that EMA help to get those classed as ‘Neet’ into the work place; in contrast this is a shot in the dark, and if anything, it is a smoke and mirrors attempt at trying to correct the mistake of scrapping EMA.
Teenagers need qualifications to enter long term well paid work, this scheme of mop and bucket incentives will not do that. If they are lucky they will get short term low paid work.

For the almost the same amount of money they could of continued the payments of £30 a week like they have done in Scotland and Wales. But scrapping EMA was about the best politics and not the best policy.

The report not only criticises the government’s decision to axe the weekly grant – worth around £30 a week to the poorest students – but also describes the EMA’s replacement as insufficient to meet students’ needs.

It is shocking that youngsters have to skip meals to get to college. Lecturers want to be encouraging students to maximise their potential and they need to at least be fed when they turn up for class.

Sadly, the findings of today’s report do not come as much of a shock to those of us at SaveEMA. We have argued from the start the government’s drive to cut EMA was an ideological move backed up by spurious evidence with absolutely no regard for the policy’s likely impact.

We produced a number of reports at the time that highlighted just how vital the money was for students. However, the government opted to cherry-pick its evidence from a survey that included hardly any students who actually depended on the EMA.

While we questioned how a cabinet of millionaires could have any understanding of the difference a few pounds a week makes to the poorest in society, the education secretary, Michael Gove, axed the grant, despite not having visited a single further education college.

Embarrassingly, but not surprisingly, the government’s evidence was later discredited by the man the government frequently cited to call the EMA a “deadweight cost”. Giving evidence to the education select committee in the summer, Mr Spielhofer said he was not happy with the concept that EMA had a deadweight cost of 88%.

He was also unhappy the axing of EMA had been based on his research and said ministers should have paid closer attention to other evidence, including work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which showed that EMA paid for itself. The select committee described the axing of the EMA as rushed and ill-though through.

After failing to listen to the evidence when axing EMA, the least the government can do now is take note of today’s findings and provide the financial support required to give the poorest teenagers a fair crack at an education. There is no benefit in consigning them to the ever-increasing number of young people on the dole queue.

See below for more info:

Of course Save EMA would just like him to say he would restore it or provide a better alternative to the current replacement, but this is at least a good start.

As 90% of pupils on Free School Meals go on to receive EMA, the Government should not be narrowing or even risking their educational prospects. The Government say the EMA has not yet been cut and we cant tell what effect it will have, but they forget that those planning to start courses this September may not be able to without prior knowledge if they will get funding. According research by the trade union UCU 40% of EMA recipients would not have even started courses without the funding. A further 70% said they would have dropped out without receiving EMA.

It is widely accepted by independent research centrers like the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) that the EMA is better than the new Government’s bursary scheme.

This is how the IFS describe the Government’s new bursary replacement:

“…any children on free school meals are currently entitled to the full £1,170 for EMA, if their circumstances do not change. 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 – on average, to the tune of £370 a year.”

This is how the IFS describes the EMA:

“The EMA significantly increased participation rates in post-16 education among young adults who were eligible to receive it. In particular, it increased the proportion of eligible 16-year-olds staying in education from 65% to 69%, and increased the proportion of eligible 17-year-olds in education from 54% to 61%. The simple cost-benefit analysis mentioned above suggests that even taking into account the level of deadweight that was found, the costs of EMA are completely offset.”

There is a clear divide between what went before for the poorest teenagers and those today looking at entering further education.

Although today will be a good day for many in this country, there will be hundreds of thousands of the poorest teenagers who for no fault of their own and regardless of their desire for an education but due to bad government policy will see their choices narrowed and their incomes cut. What’s even more disgraceful is that across the country there will be households now where one child is getting support to stay in education but the younger brother or sister, who should be starting college in September, is now instead in limbo and unsure of their future due to this Government’s actions.

In a week when the number of NEETs (those Not in Education, Employment or Training) has risen the government should not by scrapping EMA risk creating more NEETs otherwise it only helps create a lost generation of unqualified and unskilled young people, who feel that the government is against them and that they are not worth investing in. Recent weeks should show that’s not a good idea.

The government should while there is still time reverse their decision on EMA or at least put off scrapping it for another year until they have something better in place. It won’t cost anything other than face.

As pointed out previously, the Government are against the bulk of research which supports EMA, leading economists in the country and if recent polls are accurate, a Tory Chaired Select Committee, and they are also against public opinion. Even the author of the report, which the government originally based its entire case for scrapping EMA on, has come out and said he opposes the abolition of EMA.

It’s truly shameful to think that when it comes to education cuts, a Prime Minister and an Education Secretary, who were both privately educated, are not looking first at the gold plated subsidy to the private school sector, but instead to the pockets of the poorest teenagers.

The government are selling out the poorest teenagers in this country. It’s just another warning the education system in our country post 16 risks being one where a pupil’s finances and not their ability will determine how far they can go in the education system of our country…

If the Government got grades in the post today on this policy, it is clear they would have been failed…

The Save EMA campaign has warned previously that an increase in youth crime could be seen if the EMA is abolished, as some cuts can help cause crime. Talking to Sky News today, Diane Abbot MP and many others on other media platforms, have said today that many teenagers rioting have been spurred on by the abolition of EMA.

Now, Save EMA doesn’t fully agree with that view, but it does have a kernel of truth to it.

In the areas where riots took place last night involving teenagers there was almost 16,000 teenager in receipt of EMA. Those same areas which experienced riots over the weekend are also amongst the areas with the highest number of EMA recipients in London:

Lambeth (Brixton) has 3,799 recipients

Enfield has 4,424 recipients

Haringey has 3,689 recipients

Waltham Forest has 3,756 recipients

Total Number of EMA recipients: 15,934

Compare these figures with more tranquil areas such as Richmond-upon-Thames or Chelsea and Kensington who have only 900 EMA recipients each.

If you add to this the disturbance occruing in Hackney the 3,647 teenagers on EMA there, then this pushes the total number in receipt of EMA up to 19,581. This means almost a quarter of the total number of EMA recipients in London lived in areas experiencing rioting teenagers…

The Save EMA campaign believes in peaceful protest and completely rejects violence in all its forms. There is no excuse whatsoever for stealing or criminal damage. And Save EMA has previously condemned all such actions seen following education demonstrations. However, it also believes that some cuts can help cause crime by creating an environment in which it can grow.

There was no excuse for the violence over the weekend, and we must remember those teenagers who did not take part in any criminal activity at all. But as we survey the damage we cannot ignore that the environment which was created that made riots more likely in places like Brixton  than in places like Belgravia.

For example, as the figures above show, there are four times as many youngsters on EMA in Haringey than in Richmond-upon-Thames and there are four times as many youngsters on EMA in Lambeth than in Chelsea and Kensington. Is it hard therefore to wonder why we see more teenagers involved riots in some parts of London than others? The figures above of EMA recipients London highlight the disparity in poverty levels in those different parts of London.

It is hard to prove that removing EMA alone will increase crime, however, if it leads to lower levels of participation in education amongst 16-19 years olds then this is what one well respected academic, Mick Fletcher, who has advised the government has said the effects can be:

Youth Unemployment in London is above the national average, and combined with cuts to youth services and the abolition of the EMA there is an abandoned army of young people set adrift, one just has to ask any youth worker or sociologist or criminologist and they will tell you this is the environment that breeds crime.

The Save EMA campaign has met many young people over the last year and as the videos like the one below shows, many of them have been saying that if they don’t have successful schemes like EMA then they are more likely to get into trouble.

Although the Save EMA campaign doesn’t fully agree with Diane Abbott MP’s view that cutting EMA has led to the disturbances in London, we do share her fears that last weekend maybe a sign of more things to come if the abolition of successful schemes like EMA goes ahead.

The government should not risk creating a lost generation of unqualified and unskilled young people, who feel that the government is against them and that they are not worth investing in, otherwise it only helps create such scenes already seen…

Save EMA sends its sympathies to those who have been hurt or affected by the riots!

UPDATE: Following recent out bursts of violence in London, the figure has been revised up to over a third of EMA recipients in London living in riot hotspots.

The Education Select Committee’s report out today (covered by BBC here) responding to the Government’s abolition of Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) has poured criticism on the Government’s “rushed” actions in ending the scheme and also rubbished the argument’s put forward by the government for scrapping the scheme. It goes further recommending that instead of abolishing the scheme the Government should of instead merely “slimmed-down” the scheme.

The Tory Chaired Select Committee’s report strongly criticized the Government for rushing through the abolition of EMA:

“we would have welcomed a more measured and public analysis by the Government before it reached its decision to abolish the EMA.”

And the Committee’s report also blew out of the water the Government’s “deadweight” argument for abolishing EMA:

“…economic “deadweight” costs are a feature of many interventions and do not necessarily mean that the policy is invalidated. The Government should have done more to acknowledge the combined impact on students’ participation, attainment and retention, particularly amongst disadvantaged sub-groups, before determining how to restructure financial support.”

It would be nice if the Government can quote a credible independent report that supports the abolition of EMA, but so far they have not done so and they constantly dodge the question whenever asked.

It also recommended that a slimmed down version of EMA would have been better than a move to a discretionary fund.

“The Committee is not persuaded that a strong enough case has been made for distributing £180 million in student support as discretionary bursaries rather than as a slimmed-down, more targeted entitlement. We believe that the Department should have conducted an earlier, more public assessment of the options for better targeting of student support.”

This is yet another major condemnation of Government policy on EMA, this time by a cross-party group of MPs, especially as the Select Committee is chaired by a Conservative MP.

It is a sad day to see a cross party committee of MPs, pretty much confirm what everyone seems to know in this country, except the Government and Michael Gove, that scrapping EMA was a truly bad decision.

There are now next to no one outside Government who supports scrapping EMA…

The Government should, while there is still time, reverse their decision on EMA or at least put off scrapping it for another year until they have something better in place.

Unfortunately, it is a good day to bury bad news for the Government…

Remember when… teenagers on EMA, teachers, civil servants, social workers, care assistants, bin men, education officers, school support staff, librarians, social workers, nurses, doctors, lollipop ladies, and disabled people crashed the stock market, wiped out banks, took billions in bonuses and paid no tax?

No, we cant either…

That’s why Save EMA supports the strikes!