---

Education: Adult Learners

My Lords, I declare an interest as having been a university teacher for the past 41 years. I rarely speak on issues of higher education in this House but I felt moved to do so because I think that this policy is spectacularly misconceived. It cuts entirely across the lifetime learning agenda, a good deal of which takes in things such as certificates and diplomas, which will be put at an acute disadvantage by the consequences of this proposal. Given the misconceived nature of the proposal, I want to concentrate on the various exemptions and to look at two areas; namely, health and cultural and creative industries. I understand that 54 per cent of ELQ students are in London. One reason why the percentage is so large is that London is a hub for both cultural and creative industries—the development of which is a regional policy; for example, in the Mayor’s cultural strategy—and pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals and culture and creative industries are two of the biggest industries in London. With regard to health, pharmacy is excluded from the list of exemptions, as are nutrition and cognitive behaviour therapy—the Layard agenda, if you like. An institution such as the London School of Pharmacy will be seriously destabilised by the loss of income. On the cultural and creative industries side, monotechnic institutions, particularly music schools of various sorts, will be acutely affected. The majority of students in acting are adult learners, as are those in opera and associated local activities. I think that one consequence of the policy will be the creation of a range of very perverse incentives which universities, being full of clever people, will make every effort to exploit. I could go into at least three or four that are already happening but I think that my time is up. However, I think that they will occur and that the policy may be thwarted on the ground a good deal.