I find it incomprehensible that pupils and students studying abroad are being awarded a Zois scholarship (hereafter referred to as the 'ZŠ') at twice the basic amount. They have gone abroad of their own choice, where they already have certain benefits anyway. It does not seem right to me that young people are being encouraged to emigrate from Slovenia in this way.  Similarly, I do not see why someone who receives a scholarship, i.e. at least €120 a month, should have an €80 supplement because they live at least 25 km from where they go to school. As a student studying in a place over 100 km away, I understand that a lot of time and money is spent on transport, petrol, bus and other tickets, but there are already a number of public transport subsidies that mitigate this (and which Zois scholars can of course take advantage of). To be honest, it is not exactly €80 a month on transport either, but considerably less. Nor do I see the point of a €50 supplement for students with special needs. This area is already (or should be) sufficiently regulated. I do not want to sound like an abilist (a person who discriminates against an individual on the basis of his or her physical disability), but what exactly is the purpose of this allowance? Students with disabilities already have a number of rights under the current regulations that facilitate their education and overall quality of life.  I also find the following facts strange. Firstly, the fact that the formerly €66 basic primary education allowance for students has been increased to as much as €120 (excluding allowances). Where did so much money come from for such a step? Secondly, why do Zois scholarship holders receive the Primary School grant even during the summer holidays, when they are not actually in education and can, for example, find student work during this time? Please explain. From all of the above, I suggest that the reasonableness of all the supplements to the basis of the Zois scholarship for pupils and students be assessed and, if it is found that they are unnecessary, that they be abolished as well. The surplus that would be left could be earmarked either for more basic primary schools or for the benefit of state and scarce-occupation scholarships. And please, no accusations that the proposal stems from my simple jealousy of primary school recipients - for I am a Zois scholar myself, and I disagree with certain aspects of it.