Dear Member of Parliament, now for my supplementary questions.

I wish to acknowledge and thank my colleague "Fatman on a keyboard" (please see links to that blog in my links of 8th October 2007). I have now sent a series of supplementary questions to my Member of Parliament, John Denham and these are posted below -


Dear John Denham

In addition to the enquiry which I made earlier today, I now have some supplementary questions for yourself. I am a constituent of your goodself in the Southampton Itchen constituency.

Your letter has referred to shifting institutional funding away from "second degree" students. With that in mind, my supplementary first question is:

whether you realise that this is not just about people taking second degrees but the whole range of Lifelong Learning qualifications in Universities. These include University Certificates, Certificates, Diplomas and, above all, short courses that can include all types of work such as, liberal adult education, continuing professional development, work related learning, community development, etc.? The government clearly realised the damage that would be done to Foundation Degrees, which is why they have exempted them. Why not these as well?

2. The letter mentions the government wants more people of all ages and backgrounds to enter Higher Education for the first time.

So do we all, but my second question would be whether you have considered that taking out around a third of the students in Lifelong Learning could so affect the financial viability of programmes and departments that the very flexible provision and infrastructure required to deliver these new opportunities could be lost?

3. The letter says "we will also support students doing second qualifications, provided the costs are co-funded by their employers, as Sandy Leitch recommended".

My third and main question would be, given that large amounts of work related learning and continuing professional development will be lost as a result of the decision, do you seriously think that co-funding can possibly replace what will have gone?

There are a range of supplementaries to be asked too. What is your position over employers who are unwilling to pay? Will you be proposing statutory rights for employees to further their education? What about areas of the country or industries (such as tourism or the creative arts) that are dominated by Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) who are simply unable to pay?

4. The letter is full of the word 'fairness'. I want to use an unfashionable example. Take a retired student now studying in adult education. The person may have got a degree forty years ago. After paying taxes for those forty years to pay for others to take adult education classes now it is her turn, but she finds herself barred as she has just been made unfundable. Is that fair?

I look forward to your considered reply. Many thanks,

Donald Hedges, Dip Eng Law(Open), BA(Hons)(Solent).