HL Deb 21 October 1982 vol 435 cc228-9

3.20 p.m.

Baroness David

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 they can give a date on which they will make a statement on The Legal Basis of Further Education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton)

No, my Lords, but we hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Baroness David

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that not very satisfactory reply. Is he aware that The Legal Basis of Further Education was published in June 1981, and that organisations, and so on, were asked to comment by, I think, the end of October, certainly about a year ago? The people who have responded are feeling concerned and disappointed that the Government have not taken a greater interest in this matter, since adult education is an area where the Government have not been very kindly. Those working in that field are very much hoping for an early response.

Will the Minister also agree that there are a great many anomalies in the education law as it stands, particularly where 16 to 19 year-olds are concerned? For instance, a young person in school never has to pay fees, but a young person of 16 to 19 years in further education may have to do so. There is also the matter of recoupment. An authority is bound to pay recoupment if a young person is in school but not for further education. Will the Minister urge the Government to respond quickly?

Lord Elton

My Lords, as to the delay, as the noble Baroness described it, the latest comments on the report were not received until the end of last year and it is a very complex matter. On the friendship of the Government towards the world of further education, I shall only say that the Government have in this year alone given additional expenditure provision totalling about 100 million to enable more young people to stay on in education. Most of those extra people are, in fact, staying on in further education colleges. As to the anomalies, I think I should leave that to our response to the report.

Baroness Jeger

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that, when he is preparing his statement, full consideration will be given to young people between the ages of 16 and 19 who were the subject of special statements under the Education Act 1981 because of physical or mental handicap? Will he also include consideration for young people between 16 and 19 years of age who become handicapped, either physically or mentally, after they have left school but who need educational facilities up to the age of 19?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the Government are well aware of the importance of the 16 to 19 year-old bracket. What I have said refers to those staying on outside school. We do not disaggregate payments for the 16 to 19 year-old bracket inside school. As to disabled people, the noble Baroness will be aware of our recent White Paper and the attention which my honourable friend the Minister for Social Security, in his special capacity as Minister responsible for the disabled, is giving to this matter. My honourable friend Mr. Hugh Rossi is doing a good job in seeing that the aims that the noble Baroness furthers are effectively pursued by local authorities.

Lord Plant

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that those who are economically and socially deprived are also those who are educationally deprived? Does the noble Lord also agree that the Department of Education and Science agrees that much of further education is almost certainly ultra vires and that the need to amend Sections 41 and 42 of the Education Act 1944 is pressing? Finally, will the noble Lord say what is the Government's attitude to the voluntary bodies on further education, such as the Workers' Educational Association, which seems to be bearing a disproportionate amount of economy cuts?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble Lord's first premise would be the subject of an interesting sociological debate. I agree only that often social deprivation is accompanied by educational deprivation, although not always. His second question on the legality of further education is central to our response to the report, when it comes. If the noble Lord will remind me of his third question I shall answer it.

Lord Plant

My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that my question was in relation to the Workers' Educational Association, which seems to be experiencing a disproportionate amount of cuts?

Lord Elton

My Lords, the Government are well seized of the value of the Workers' Educational Association, as indeed am I. We seek in no way to limit the good work which it does.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many aspects of this issue of legal recognition of adult education? Is he further aware that Professor Roger Dyson has just been talking about grants to students at universities and taking courses? A 24-week course will now cost £45 for adult students. There is a great difficulty with the Workers' Educational Association, now celebrating in North Staffordshire 60 years of existence, in finding courses which the young unemployed can attend, because they can no longer afford them. The nation, having this unemployment situation, has an obligation to the young adults who have not had the opportunity of education that many noble Lords in this House have had themselves.

Lord Elton

My Lords, much as some of your Lordships may sympathise with the noble Lord's remarks, I have to remind him that the Question is whether or not there is a date on which we are to make a statement. I have had to say that I cannot say precisely when that statement will be made. When it is made it will be made in the knowledge of the noble Lord's views.