you are here: Home - Newsletter - February 2008 - Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor

Views expressed by contributors are not necessarily those of the editor or of the BDRA. Information is published in good faith but no liability can be accepted for loss or inconvenience arising from error or omission. 

Dear Trevor
It was brought to members’ attention at the Council meeting held on 1st November 2007 that the letter contained within the last edition of The Resident from Mr L.R.Scott contained incorrect information regarding the land behind the war memorial. Mr Scott stated that “the asphalt behind the memorial is going to be dealt with by the council.” As you are aware this area is not the responsibility of either the Town Council or the District Council and it would be appreciated if reference to this could be made in the next edition of The Resident. I have received a letter from Mr Scott regarding this area of land and I will be responding to him accordingly.

 Yours sincerely
 Helen Philpot
Town Clerk.

Dear Trevor
I refer to the piece concerning Adult Education classes in the December2007/January2008 issue of The Resident. The reply form Michael Bowes is substantially the same as that I received form Councillor Mrs Iris Pummell, Cabinet Member for Community Services, Essex County Councillor date 30 July 2007. However the then Minister of Equality and Women’s Rights, Ms Meg Munn said in a letter to The Times (11th May 2007 issue) that “there is no intention to outlaw beneficial age based concessions” – I have written to her twice but without reply so far.
I enclose a copy of a letter published in Saga Magazine December 2007 issue (see sidebar) which seems to run counter to the explanation given by Mr Bowes – if the legal advice given to the council positively states that such concessions are unlawful then that advice seems to be wrong as Ms Follett clearly states that such concessions are not unlawful per se. Any challenge (which seems unlikely) could probably be rebutted according to Ms Follett; there are other points raised in her letter such as the action taken by other local authorities. I am aware that at least Havering and Southend have not removed all such concessions and the letter in Saga suggests there are other councils in the same position.
I am writing to Mr Bowes suggesting that in the review of fees to which he refers for September 2008 Ms Follett’s statement is given full weight, including the point about such concessions possibly (and even probably) being capable of being shown to be “objectively justified”. However, being a cynic, I suspect that this legislation is just a ploy to extract more income (in any event the subsidy of 64% mentioned is being reduced to 50% by 2010, so there will be a 15% increase in “core” fees by then in any event – indeed Lord Hanningfield’s view is that Government is moving to a fee system based on “ability to pay” rather than being age related.

Yours sincerely
R.G.Piper

Some of your readers have recently expressed concern about how the new Employment Equality (Age) Regulations are being interpreted by further education authorities. These regulations do not expressly bar adult education providers from offering concessionary fees to older learners and most colleges have continued to age as an eligibility criterion for fee remissions. It is important to note that the Age Regulations allow differential treatment on grounds of age where such practices can be “objectively justified” – that is, where such treatment fulfils a legitimate aim and is proportionate. In the event of a legal challenge by a a learner who does not qualify for age –based concessions, it would be open to a college to argue that its concessionary fees can be “objectively justified”. At present, the United Kingdom does not have any legislation which prohibits harmful discrimination on the grounds of age outside the workplace, but as part of its Discrimination Law Review, the Government is considering whether there is a need for such legislation. It has consulted the public and held discussions with Saga, Age Concern, Help the Aged and the insurance industry. A decision will be made soon. I hope that this helps to clarify some of the confusion which surrounds this area.

Barbara Follett, Parliamentary Under Secretary, Department of Work and Pensions.