It is correct that the previous Government moved funding from general non-vocational adult education to basic provision for 16 to 19 year olds.

I have always felt that the non-vocational courses provided through adult education were of great value, and, when I chaired the relevant committee some years ago, did whatever was possible to maintain this service.

Further, I never quite understood the logic of cutting this particular budget so severely to fund basic 16 to 19 courses apart from the fact that they were under the same government department.

Having said all that I would argue that, given money is scarce, there is an even weaker case than ever for using it to fund under-used buildings. Keeping Kirkdale open means that less classes can be provided as money that could go on classes has to go to keep an unnecessary building open.

I don't know numbers now, but, when I was involved, Kirkdale had about a thousand students, which sounds a lot, but, of course, they were very part time, and Kirkdale is a big building.

To really court unpopularity, I would suggest that the first line of enquiry should be to sell the building and add the receipts to Lewisham's capital resources. The list of highly desirable public capital projects in Lewisham is doubtless far longer than the funds available for them, and keeping redundant buildings is not sensible. Of course, the School might be able to use the building, but that has a cost in terms of investment, and foregone opportunities for other projects. Where would that use fit against other possible uses of the resources released by sale?