argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that clarification. In a sense, he has made my point for me. There will be some national standards in certain fields of endeavour, which he has helpfully specified. However, I think that there is a contradiction in his position, a contradiction from which I do not think I suffer Amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, would insert the words "state-funded". I found the Minister’s argument persuasive when he explained why he thought that the amendment should not be passed. I may have misunderstood what he said, but he seemed to be saying that he wanted a more overarching model that would encompass privately obtained qualifications. I agree with him. I merely suggest that, if amendment 7 is not accepted, it would be logical to accept something along the lines of amendment 9, which would not limit the requirement to state funding but would provide for national standards, not just in the broad but restricted field defined by what the Minister helpfully read out a moment ago, but more widely. I think that that would be better for confidence, better for our economy and better for the people—many of whom will be young—who will acquire those qualifications. I therefore ask the Minister to think again A similar issue is raised by amendments 18 to 21, which relate to the involvement of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. They, too, seem to me to relate to the ability of employers and prospective apprentices—and, in the case of young apprentices, their families—to feel confident that the system will deliver a qualification that our country needs and that involves enough training to ensure that those apprentices are likely not only to end up with jobs but to contribute to society as we would like them to. That returns me to the workforce planning issue to which I adverted earlier The Minister and the Government ought to think again about those amendments. They may not want to accept the exact wording, but I should like them to include the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the list of agencies that will have a role to play in the planning, the maintenance and perhaps even the raising of standards. That would be desirable.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Vernon Coaker (Labour, Centre-left): I was not a member of the Committee, but I know that the Technical and Further Education Bill has generated a lot of really good debate and positive views on how we might achieve what we all want, which is an improvement in the technical and vocational education in this country and in apprenticeships. The fact that there is no division between us on that was illustrated by the contributions from the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), among others.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Tracy Lynn Brabin (Labour, Centre-left): New clause 4 deals with careers education provision in technical and further education, and I want to build on the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). As the Minister knows from our time spent together on the Bill Committee, this issue is of particular interest to me, and I would like to thank him for the courtesy that he has extended in explaining what the Department is doing in this area, and for introducing me to the Careers & Enterprise Company. I also thank him for his keen interest in improving careers education. After due consideration, however, I feel that the new clause is necessary and that it will complement the work that is already under way. There have been a lot of warm words and verbal support, but not including careers education provision in this legislation is an enormous missed opportunity The Bill will shake up the technical and further education sector considerably, and accepting the new clause would show how important career planning is to the House and to the Government. During private meetings before the Bill went into Committee, real concerns were raised with me about the lack of careers education provision in our colleges. It has been stressed that the lack of advice available is such that, without explicit legislation on careers guidance, the matter will be nudged even further towards the back of the priorities queue. Resources in our colleges are overstretched, and I was disappointed to hear that in one institution a receptionist with no specialist qualifications or training had been asked to give careers guidance. The problem of a lack of careers guidance is stark. It has been brought to the attention of the Department by the co-Chairs of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy. In its report, the Sub-Committee states: "Ministers appear to be burying their heads in the sand while careers guidance fails young people, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and exacerbates the country’s skills gap." It is clear that we cannot rely on warm words and reassurances alone. We must have provisions in writing and in legislation, because we have an obligation to our learners. As we know, the world of work that our young people are entering is changing really fast. The sector in which an apprentice starts their learning will have transformed enormously by the time they reach their last year. Access to guidance and advice should not be left behind when they step into a career. It should be more agile and responsive to the skills and experience they are picking up. It is those opportunities that new clause 4 would seize, including an opportunity for a strategy to be laid before the House that was specialised for further and technical education, that was ongoing, and that provided parity of esteem between technical, further and higher education, using the expertise of the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. This is a huge opportunity that is too good to miss.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): I beg to move amendment 1, page 8, line 4, at end add— ‘(3) Before an education administrator may perform functions specified in subsection (2), they must ensure an appropriate assessment is made and published of the impact of performing such functions, including, but not restricted, to— (a) the impact on the quality of education provided to existing students of the further education body; (b) the capacity of another body or institution to undertake any additional functions or provide education to additional students; (c) the infrastructure of the local area, in particular transport; (d) the ability of students to travel to another body or institution; and (e) any financial impact on those students, including the cost of travel by students to attend another body or institution, and steps to mitigate those impacts (4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to specify suitable bodies for making the assessments at subsection (3) (5) Regulations made under subsection (4)— (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; and (b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." This amendment would ensure that an appropriate assessment is made of any potential impacts on students and their education, if an education administrator puts a further education body into "special administration" and takes action such as transferring students to another institution or keeps an insolvent institution open for existing students. This amendment would also require the Secretary of State to specify suitable bodies to perform such assessments.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, in clause 18, page 9, line 15, at end insert— "(e) suspend the Office for Students protection action for students." This amendment would give the court the power to suspend Office for Students’ student protection action for the period of insolvency in which the education administrator has responsibility for the management of an FE body . Amendment 3, in clause 28, page 13, line 2, at end insert— ‘(1A) Sums guaranteed under subsection (1) shall include statutory pension obligations payable to staff employed by a further education body subject to an education administration order." This amendment would ensure that staff employed by an FE college continue to accrue statutory Teachers Pension Scheme and Local Government Pension Scheme pension obligations? during an education administration. Amendment 22, in schedule 2, page 30, line 39, at end insert— "3A The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a for-profit private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds." This amendment would ensure further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly, could not be transferred to a for-profit private company.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): My hon. Friend is much more familiar with the Bill than I am. On the clarity that he seeks to introduce by this amendment, does he share my concern—perhaps he does not, because he knows the Bill better—that it is not clear in the Bill what an education administrator is? I know that he or she will be an officer of the court and that they will carry out certain functions. Training is central to what we are talking about on the Bill, yet I cannot see anything that says there has to be certain qualifications for an education administrator. It is a bit fuzzy.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Labor
Robert Howard Marris (Labour, Centre-left): May I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister is well aware of that scenario, because my local college, the City of Wolverhampton College, has a big pension problem, and when I have discussed it with him he has been extremely helpful in trying to resolve it?
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he has provided a specific example of precisely the issue that has led us to table the amendment Amendment 22—I give notice that we will be pressing it to a vote—would ensure that further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly could not be transferred to a for-profit private company. We had a significant discussion about that in Committee. For the benefit of those who were not in Committee, and indeed those who were, I will try to summarise it as briefly as possible, because I think that the principle is extraordinarily important The current situation raises some significant questions about what would happen to the transfer of assets. The information states that assets should be transferred only to charitable bodies, and it is on that point that I wish to focus my remarks. Where the bodies are not charities, assets must be transferred in accordance with the charitable purpose of the trust. It then links to a list of prescribed bodies to which assets could be transferred, including sixth-form colleges and governing bodies. The point that I am making is that it is expected that all transfers should be made to charitable bodies, but that is not the same as saying that that is required When colleges were incorporated in 1992, it took them formally outside the aegis of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke eloquently about that in Committee. We have to take into account that the asset base in many cases was built up with local authority support and funding over 20 or 30 years. I reminded the Minister in Committee about my own local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which he has visited. He went to the Bispham campus, which has buildings and elements that go right back to the 1950s and ’60s. When the Building Colleges for the Future process took place in 2000, we did not get the new college that we hoped we would for a variety of reasons to do with where we were in the food chain. Nevertheless, I am illustrating that the estates of many buildings we are talking about have been accrued either on an active financial basis or by the ceding of land by local authorities and other organisations.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Gordon Marsden (Labour, Centre-left): I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and taken note of his views and the proposals he has made. On that basis, we are prepared to withdraw amendment 1. On amendments 2 and 3, I heard the reassurances that the Minister has given, but when the Bill reaches the other place there needs to be a further examination of the very important issues around the pension schemes. I am not entirely convinced that the assurances, which I am sure have been made in good faith, will actually do the business As regards amendment 22, I thank the Minister for his explanation of what he described as the quadruple lock, but I am afraid, not least because of seeing past practice, that we have to plan in this Bill not for the best circumstances but for the worst. This is also a really important issue of public policy that we should establish within the Bill. On that basis, we wish to press amendment 22 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 1 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Schedule 2 Education administration: transfer schemes Amendment proposed: 22, page 30, line 39, at end insert— "3A The education administrator may not transfer assets of any further education body to a for-profit private company where he or she considers that more than half of the funding of the acquisition of the asset came from public funds."—(Gordon Marsden.) This amendment would ensure further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly, could not be transferred to a for-profit private company. Question put, That the amendment be made.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I can now inform the House of my decision about certification. For the purposes of Standing Order No. 83L(2), I have certified clauses 2 to 38 of, and schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill as relating exclusively to England and Wales and within devolved legislative competence, and clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Bill as relating exclusively to England and within devolved legislative competence. Copies of my certificate are available in the Vote Office Under Standing Order No. 83M, consent motions are therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motions?
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Lindsay Harvey Hoyle (Labour, Centre-left): I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)), That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill: Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence Clauses 2 to 38 of, and Schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.) Question agreed to. The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)). Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)), That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill: Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence Clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.) Question agreed to. The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)). The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): As the Minister will remember, I suggested in Committee that all colleges should have professionally qualified members with financial skills in both management and governorship, so that skilled eyes would be trained on the finances to ensure that at least mistakes were not made internally.
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): I pay tribute to all those working in sixth-form education for the fantastic work they do on behalf of our young people and our country. I particularly praise the two excellent colleges, North Lindsey and John Leggott, that serve young people in north Lincolnshire. Having led John Leggott as principal before being elected to this House, I know the importance of this phase of education in transforming life opportunities. I also know that, since I stood down as principal, the challenges facing those who lead colleges has been immense. Three direct cuts were imposed on 16 to 18 funding in the last Parliament, whereas five to 16 funding was protected. On top of that 13.6% real-terms cut, colleges now face a further 8% erosion of the current national funding rate over the remainder of this Parliament due to inflation. There are further pressures from increased employer pension and national insurance costs The average funding per student in the sixth forms of schools and academies and in sixth-form colleges is now £4,583, which is 20% less than the funding received to educate each 11 to 16-year-old and 47% less than the average university tuition fee of £8,636 per student. How, in all logic, can it be so much cheaper to educate a 16 to 18-year-old than a 15-year-old or a 19-year-old The Government claim that they have "provided sufficient funds for every full-time student to do a full timetable of courses" But they have not published any research on the sufficiency of the funding provided to educate 16 to 18-year-olds. In short, the Government do not know how much it costs "to do a full timetable of courses".
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman is right to praise Lowestoft College, which, like many colleges in the country, does a fantastic job on behalf of the young people it educates. He is also right to say that these colleges need to be properly funded to ensure they continue to do that good job into the future In reality, the national funding rate—currently £4,000 for 16 and 17-year-olds and £3,300 for 18-year-olds—is calculated by taking the settlement arrived at between the Department for Education and the Treasury, and dividing it by the number of students in the 16 to 18 age group. It is no more sophisticated than that. In the independent sector, sixth-form fees are higher than secondary fees to reflect the actual cost of delivery for this age group.
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Kelvin Peter Hopkins (Labour, Centre-left): Does my hon. Friend accept the remarkable statistic that sixth-form colleges outperform all other 16 to 19 forms of institution across the country, as has been recorded by the Sixth Form Colleges Association in its wonderful manifesto?
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): I thank my hon. Friend for rightly highlighting the high level of performance that sixth-form colleges deliver. He does a fantastic job as a governor of Luton Sixth-Form College and as chair of the all-party group on sixth-form colleges There is now a significant gap between the funding made available to educate sixth formers and the actual cost of delivering the rounded, high-quality curriculum we would all want to see well into the future.
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that certain elements of the curriculum are under threat when there is such pressure on funding. Enrichment activities, including those that address mental health issues, are one of the many activities that have been under threat over the past six years. The dramatic collapse in funding does have an inevitable impact on the education that 16 to 18-year-olds receive. As someone who has managed resources in a sixth-form college, I know that there are only a small number of variables to play with when facing significant funding cuts, as the sector has since 2010. Alongside the usual good management things relating to the back office, procurement, charges, efficiencies and so on, there are a limited number of options: shrink the curriculum offer; increase the teaching staff contact time; reduce student contact time; and increase class sizes. In reality, all those things have to be done to make things hang together.
Sixth-form Education: International Comparisons — House of Commons, 2017-01-09
Topic: Education
Nicholas Dakin (Labour, Centre-left): The hon. Lady is right to point out the performance of sixth-form colleges and the pressure on their funding. Of course the funding situation for 16 to 18 education is not just affecting sixth-form colleges—it is affecting school sixth forms and academy sixth forms, too. It is affecting all 16 to 18 experience. Since 2010, the programmes of study followed by students have altered in those typical ways I outlined. Back then, most level 3 students followed a curriculum of four advanced courses in year 1, plus general studies, enrichment and tutorial. They progressed on to three or four courses in year 2, plus enrichment and tutorial. In most cases, as the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) pointed out, the enrichment has gone, the tutorial has shrunk significantly, general studies has largely disappeared and the number of advanced level courses taken is now normally three in both years. That leads to significantly lower student contact time. I know from experience that there is a direct correlation between contact time and achievement, particularly for students who have struggled to achieve at 16.