Loss of EMA comes at a very high price

In some ways, the statement was marginally better than expected, with money allocated so that young people who have already started their courses can complete them without undue hardship or anxiety. Yet the EMA has been cut by 70 per cent; with just £180m to replace a £550m scheme, it is inconceivable that there won't be a significant impact on young people.

The justification, we were told, was that the replacement pot, the discretionary learner support fund, would leave the poorest young people better off. But after the announcement, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated that young people on free school meals would be £370 a year worse off than they are now.

The focus on the most disadvantaged, while important, misses the point. In reality, the vast majority of young people who receive EMA come from households with an income of less than £21,000. For young people with several siblings, £30 a week is the difference between going to college and not. For many others, it means being able to attend college without walking long distances or going hungry.

I have seen this in my constituency, where young people have to fork out more than £550 a year for a travel card just to get to college. Without the EMA some couldn't attend at all, while others would opt for less suitable courses at nearer colleges or walk and go hungry for the same chances as their better-off peers.

Surely in 2011, this cannot be the extent of our ambition for young people? It was this reality facing so many young people that was missing from the debate and made it so distasteful to watch politicians, all of whom have household incomes above £64,500, welcoming the abolition of support for young people who are experiencing real hardship.

With just weeks until students have to decide whether to take up courses, the announcement leaves big questions unanswered. We were told that the new fund will be linked to free school meals. Nic Dakin, a former college principal, and the MP for Scunthorpe, asked how the government would deal with the fact that students in sixth-form colleges are not entitled to them.

There was also confusion about how colleges will receive the money and how they will spend it. Until the eight-week consultation ends, it is unclear whether colleges will buy services, like buses or extra support, or hand it out to students. In any case, it is likely that there will be significant variation in how the money is spent.

I share the view of young people and campaigners that giving the money to young people directly is important. The beauty of EMA was that students had to attend college and work hard or they didn't get it. It was a contract between young people and the state that said "if you work hard, we will back you to succeed, regardless of your background". Now that contract has been broken.

The shambolic dismantling of the EMA is, in my constituency, even more significant than the row that accompanied tuition fees. Initiatives like the recently abolished Aim Higher and the EMA boosted university attendance in Wigan by 40 per cent in just six years. Young people in constituencies like mine were often the first generation that expected to go to university and for them and their families it is a devastating betrayal that this has been pushed so far beyond their grasp.

Following Gove's announcement, I have been inundated with questions from young people about what this will mean for them. Although many remain outstanding, the biggest unanswered question is why. We can find money for fuel duty cuts, free schools and tax breaks for large multinational firms, but we cannot find the money for young people from less affluent backgrounds who simply want to go to college.

Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP for Wigan and a member of the education select committee