GOVERNMENT research shows that 90 per cent of students would remain in higher education if the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was removed.

But college research says that 70 per cent of students would not be there if EMA was withdrawn.

And a survey at Darlington College said that 36 per cent of students would not attend if they lost their EMA. The figure at Middlesbrough College – which serves a poorer area – is higher still.

There is little doubt that EMA should be reformed. It could be better targetted at the poorest students.

But there is also little doubt that providing poorer students with up to £30 a week does enable many of them to stay in further education.

It is an investment in their future.

It may even repay itself in assisting them in finding higher skilled and better paid jobs that will prevent them from a life of benefit-dependency.

So it is a shame that more definitive and considered research has not been done by the Government into EMA.

It is also a shame that the Government has not detailed its replacement for EMA before rushing ahead, breaking its manifesto pledge and scrapping it.

The Government hopes – which is far from being a promise – to triple the existing £26m “learner support fund”.

That would take it to £78m a year.

But EMA currently pays out £560m.

The discrepancy between the two figures is huge, and students from poorer backgrounds who need the most assistance will be the biggest losers.

We do not deny the deficit; we do not deny the need to make cuts.

But scrapping EMA, without having a concrete plan about what to do next, reinforces the view that the Government is going too far too fast.