Jacqui Smith has defended the government’s plans to reintroduce maintenance grants in England, arguing that although they were not as generous as hoped, they are an “important statement”.��

Speaking at Ruskin College on 4 December, the skills minister hinted that there had been a battle within the government to secure the grants, which were axed by the Conservatives a decade ago.

Smith said education minister Bridget Phillipson had “fought across government” to get to this position.

Details of the new grants published last week revealed they will be set at a maximum of £1,000 per year for students with a household income below £25,000. They will only be available to students on courses aligned with government priorities, although the specific eligible programmes have not yet been named.��

̽����Ƶ

Critics have claimed the low amount will do little to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“Is that as wide ranging and generous as any of us would have ideally wanted it to be?” asked Smith. “Not at this point, but it is a very important statement to say that we will be reintroducing maintenance grants on top of an increased maintenance loan offer as well.”

̽����Ƶ

The comments follow Phillipson’s appearance in front of the education select committee earlier in the week, where she was also grilled on whether the grants will move the dial on widening participation.��

Phillipson told MPs the move was important as it “reintroduced the principle of maintenance grant support”.

Speaking at the Ruskin College event, Vanessa Wilson, chief executive of University Alliance, criticised the design of the incoming international student levy, which will be used to fund the new maintenance grants.��

“Where we’ve landed in the budget recently is in a really bad place,” she said.��

“We’ve moved away from…what it was originally intended, which was to take from the wealthy to enable the poorest in society to be able to go to university.��

“Essentially they’ve applied a flat fee across everybody regardless of the fact that some institutions charge sky-high international fees. And that means that universities that I represent are now going to be really punished for that.��

̽����Ƶ

“We’re actually the…institutions that will probably be receiving the most students who are going to be eligible for the student maintenance grant.” 

Reflecting on the government’s post-16 White Paper more widely, Wilson criticised the decision to give more responsibilities to the Office for Students (OfS).

̽����Ƶ

The regulator is “getting bigger and bigger”, she said. “They put a huge strain on the universities in terms of the data that they require and they cost the universities more in order to fulfil that.��

“If the universities are being asked to streamline and be effective, I think our regulators should walk the talk and be really focused about what [they need] to do and do well and actually do what most concerns students.”

However, she added that there was “a lot to like” in the White Paper too.

“We finally have a vision for the post-16, which under the previous administration we didn’t have anything like that and certainly no strategy.”

Asked how the government would progress the policies proposed in the White Paper – and increased collaboration in particular – Smith said the onus was on institutions to use the vision set out by government to move forward.

“I think there is a responsibility on those within the sector who…in the past have said, ‘well, of course, we wish we could have collaborated more, but there’s too much of a focus on competition from government and if only there wasn’t, things would be able to happen’.��

̽����Ƶ

“We’re giving you permission. We will work to remove barriers that prevent that from happening…but I won’t sit in the [Department for Education]… and try to direct the way in which that is manifest in different areas. I don’t think that is going to lead to the best or most interesting innovation.”

helen.packer@timeshighereducation.com