HL Deb 23 April 1969 vol 301 cc434-5

2.46 p.m.

LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the change in the age of majority, the regulations as to parental contributions towards student first degree and comparable awards are not illogical and out of date, and whether they will take urgent steps to review them.]

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science sees no likelihood at present of making any substantial changes in the regulations governing parental contributions.

LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY

My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that not very satisfactory reply, may I ask her whether the Government accept that the regulations are out of date and illogical? May I also ask, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies both to this Question and to the Question asked by the noble Lord, lord Brockway, whether some fairly quick work ought not to be done on tidying up the illogicalities left over from the change in the age of majority?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I think I should remind the noble Lord of the Award Regulations, because they have a great deal of relevance to the age of majority. They say: No parental contribution shall be required in respect of an awardholder … who—

  1. (a) has regularly supported himself out of his earnings for three years preceding the year in which the course begins …; or
  2. (b) in the case of a man, or an unmarried woman, who has attained the age of 25 before the year in which the course begins."
I therefore think, my Lords, that we can say that in any case this age is not directly related to the present age of majority.

LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. But would she not agree that the fact that the regulations were illogical before the change in the age of majority is no reason why they should go on being illogical after the change?

BARONESS PHILLIPS

My Lords, I do not agree that they are illogical—and I do not think the noble Lord expected me to. What I am saying is that the determining factor is not directly related to the age of majority. But I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that if one were to substitute his proposal, if one were to take this completely away, it would cost a great deal of money, and this is not the point of time to spend all that extra money on this one thing. I certainly have higher priorities in the educational structure.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, when was the Liberal Party logical?