argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Michael Goodall Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young for moving this amendment, which I am happy to support. In broad terms, we believe that the recommendations of the Sainsbury review should be fully implemented and funded. In the short term, there are three clear funding needs from the skills plan: fair funding for colleges; costs associated with finding and managing work placements, because they involve an individualised service to young people and employers rather than education to a group; and the cost of the transition year. A two-year full-time course would be the standard model under the plan, but with the expectation that some school leavers would need to take an additional transition year. This implies a full-time three-year programme. The current 16-to-18 funding system assumes a full two years and then administers a 17.5% cut in the third year. A sensible step, therefore, would be to maintain the full rate for three years for those students taking the transition year In his letter to noble Lords dated 22 February, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, stated that there are currently around 3,500 vocational qualifications. Most professionals in the sector have cited a figure of more than three times that amount, but more important is how the transition to the new regime is managed and funded. The Minister also said in his letter that the reforms would be phased in progressively, with the first routes available for delivery from September 2019. That apart, the transition was not set out and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Young would enable that to happen. It would be a positive move and we believe that it is incumbent on the Minister to commit to it by accepting this modest amendment.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Anthony Young (Labour, Centre-left): I would like some clarification. The Minister said that the Sainsbury panel identified low-skilled or unskilled occupations that could be learned in a matter of weeks. We are talking about apprenticeships. The Government have already said that the minimum period for an apprenticeship is one year. That covers a very wide range of occupations. I would not necessarily call them unskilled or even low-skilled. Whether it is retail or anything else that is sometimes referred to in this manner, I do not think that is fair, especially if we are talking about an apprenticeship. We have said, I believe, that 20% of an apprenticeship should be off-the-job training. Which are the groups that do not require any technical qualifications whatever?
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Michael Goodall Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, with Amendment 17, I am in the slightly alarming position of being the meat in a Liberal Democrat sandwich as far as the Marshalled List is concerned. This of course is a follow-on from the very valuable amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, just referred, which now forms Clause 2 of the Bill. We have just further benefited from his wisdom with his remarks on this amendment. I wholly concur with his view that there is a need not so much to improve as to establish careers advice in further education colleges. I very much agree also with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in introducing this group of amendments about this being about preparation for careers rather than just giving information The quality of what colleges are able to provide is key to so many young people, but much will depend on the ability of Ofsted to carry out inspections of FE colleges to make this amendment effective. It rather surprised me in the debate that followed the announcement of which providers had been successful in gaining access to the register of apprentice training providers last week that before the register came into force, there were 793 apprenticeship providers. The register has nearly doubled that, with 1,473 organisations now in the frame for inspection when the register goes live in May. But that is not the extent of the burden being placed on Ofsted and its responsibility to inspect, because the process for applying to the register is due to take place four times every year, and it is expected that the number will soon rise perhaps to well over 2,000. It was quite instructive that when asked about the implications of this, Ofsted’s new chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, responded: "It is a huge challenge" I think she was being politic because she must have real concerns. Unless the Government plan to increase Ofsted’s resources to enable it to inspect the new environment effectively, there will be very real gaps, which will be a huge shame I hope the amendment will be taken seriously by Ministers. It is important that the very least they do is recognise that there has to be a proper system of careers advice being offered by colleges to ensure that young people get the start in life that they deserve.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Estelle Morris (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I would like to ask a question that has just come to mind, mainly because I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Amendment 17 is far better because it allows a flexibility that we did not have before, and having it in the Bill would help to raise the profile of careers education during Ofsted inspections, so I am happy to support it. No doubt the Minister will let us know what the framework already says, but I think the intent is fine. I support 100% the point that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been making about young people’s access to careers education. I have no problem with the way in which Amendments 8 and 9 were described, and in fact I have supported such amendments on previous occasions. However, it has struck me that although it is the right of the student to have access to the information, it is not the right of the person to go into the school. I know that sounds like a fine difference, but I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on that and give some assurance that, although a head would not have the right to deny the information and access to the school from someone who was giving that information, they would retain their right as head of the school to choose who talked to their students The quality of a speaker is very important. If I were a head teacher, I would not want someone who I knew was a bad speaker and did not engage the children successfully or in a professional manner to have access to my school, even if they might be talking about something whose content was very important. Indeed, one of the reasons for not doing that would be because they would put the information over badly. My years of teaching experience might be from a long time ago, but I remember some horror stories of outside visitors coming into schools who just did not have the skills to engage and talk to children and young people. I am not opposed at all to the amendments, but I do not think we have discussed the right of the head to retain control over who is speaking to his or her students. I would like that to be considered, without taking away from the intent of the amendments we have discussed.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Anthony Young (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, if you want to change attitudes in schools and colleges, one of the most powerful influences you can have is to send in their peer groups to talk to them. I met a young woman today who had taken a degree in mechanical engineering. It was interesting talking to her about what her influences had been in taking that decision. More importantly for me, when I asked her whether she was going back into schools and colleges to talk to young people about what a successful career they could establish in engineering, the answer was a very clear affirmative When Ofsted is carrying out an inspection, I hope it will take into account the general approach of the school. It is not just about formal careers advice, as has already been stated, but about whether they have an open mind. I take my noble friend Lady Morris’s point about the quality of speakers; obviously you want someone who can engage in a positive way. But I hope that when Ofsted looks at schools and colleges it is taking into account the links with business, business people and people who have successfully completed their apprenticeships coming into schools, and the role of women in subjects like engineering, STEM and construction in changing attitudes and making young people, and especially young women, aware that there is a wide variety of careers open to them with lots of well-rewarded career paths. That is an essential part of any careers advice.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, we had a very interesting debate in Committee about the role of clerks in FE institutions. It is clear from our debates on the Bill that these institutions face many challenges. We have agreed that it is important to have the highest quality of people appointed to their governing bodies and that clerks can be very helpful in giving advice to them. The Minister said he would give some consideration to this and I look forward to his response. I beg to move.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Education
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, as the Minister mentioned the ETF, I remind the House of my declaration that my wife is a consultant to it. I am grateful to the Minister, particularly because he is going to meet the AoC to discuss the outcome of its review. I accept that good practice is probably the best way forward. However, I hope the Government will keep up the pressure on the AoC and colleges to ensure that they employ good people who can provide robust advice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Technical and Further Education Bill — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Government Operations
Philip Alexander Hunt (Labour, Centre-left): There is no guarantee at all because the clerks are tight about what they will allow. The Government have to agree that they will allow us to bring it back. That is why I made the point.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Social Welfare
William David McKenzie (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I shall forgo the right to speak as extensively as I otherwise would, but I shall do three things. First, I very much support the Motion of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, and the manner in which it was spoken to. Then I wanted to ask the Minister a question about the original policy intent, because we have heard it as a justification for these regulations on a number of occasions. Can we be very clear on this? The Government pray in aid the PIP assessment guide as evidence to the original policy intent, but can we understand precisely when that and the detail were discussed by Parliament—not by officials but by Parliament—to be able to justify the claim that was made Finally, on the finances, we should not forget in all this that PIP was introduced against a backdrop of the predecessor, DLA, having a 20% cut in its budget. We talk about the implications of government costs of £3.7 billion, but let us just remember that forgoing that cost to government means resources to disabled people are lost as well. While £3.7 billion is what the Government might save from this, the losers are the disabled community, to a massive extent.
Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 — House of Lords, 2017-03-27
Topic: Social Welfare
Maeve Christina Mary Sherlock (Labour, Centre-left): That this House regrets that Her Majesty’s Government is implementing the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 without formal referral to the Social Security Advisory Committee; and that the Regulations discriminate against people with mental health problems, and could put vulnerable claimants at risk; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to allow proper scrutiny of these proposals, including a review of the changes that the Regulations make and their specific impact on those with mental health conditions, within two years of their coming into force Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Schools Update: National Funding Formula — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Education
Michael Goodall Watson (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. If today’s announcement is indeed a funding formula where not a single school loses funding and it is genuinely new money, I will welcome it. Indeed, I will offer hearty congratulations to the Minister because that would mean the Government had formally adopted Labour Party policy, as set out in our manifesto for this year’s election To expect the Minister to concede that point might be a step too far but in any case we are not yet there. Real questions remain about real-term protections for school budgets, the length of the transition to the new funding formula and whether the Government will finally begin to reverse the wider cuts facing school budgets. However, I unconditionally welcome the recognition given to high-needs pupils, not least in the title of the policy document itself. Yet the total spend of £5.9 billion that the Minister mentioned is not referenced. Is that the figure projected to 2020? What is the baseline figure On the question of cuts to schools already being dealt with by head teachers, non-partisan bodies such as the National Audit Office and the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that even the £1.3 billion of what we now know is recycled money announced by the Secretary of State in July would reduce the 6.5% real-terms cuts facing schools only to 4.6%. What effect will today’s announcement have on these real-terms cuts? Indeed, where does the £1.3 billion announced in July stand in relation to today’s Statement? It is mentioned but it was not clear to me how it is tied in. The Statement says core funding for schools and high needs will rise from £41 billion this year to £42.4 billion next year and then £43.5 billion. It is not clear how that relates to the £1.3 billion announced in July I mentioned that if this is as it seems it will be welcome but head teachers, teachers, support staff and students deserve to know quite clearly where they stand in respect of today’s announcement. In announcing the £2.6 billion additional core funding, the Statement mentioned delivery on the Conservative Party manifesto in terms of fairer funding. However, it made no mention of the fact that that same manifesto promised £4 billion of new funding in the period of the entire Parliament, should it last up to 2022. What status does that commitment now command? I hope it still stands Finally, we welcome the fact that the Government listened to the voices of teachers and parents, as expressed during the general election. That clearly had a considerable bearing on the content of this announcement. However, as ever, the devil is in the detail. Until we have that detail, future funding for our schools will remain unclear. I hope the Minister will allay those fears. I would not expect him to come back on those points just now. It would be perfectly acceptable if he wrote to me.
Schools Update: National Funding Formula — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Education
James Philip Knight (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I congratulate the Government and particularly the officials on bringing this forward. I certainly remember commissioning a review of the funding formula back when I announced one, about 10 years ago. Unfortunately it felt as if politics, with things such as general elections and changes in government, got in the way of implementing the outcome of that review. These things happen. I am particularly pleased to see sparsity issues recognised in this announcement My question relates to a welcome guarantee, if I heard the Minister correctly, of a real-terms, per-head increase of at least 0.5% next year and 1% the year after. That is important. However, I am also mindful of this week’s report from the National Audit Office regarding the recruitment and retention of teachers—and I remind the House of my interest in respect of my work at TES. At paragraph 2.2, the report states: "To meet the increasing need for teachers, particularly in secondary schools, the Department for Education … and schools will need to improve teacher recruitment and retention. We reported in February 2016 that the Department has not met its overall target for filling teacher training places in each of the past four years. It has since missed the target for a fifth year" As the department reflects on that, particularly given that this week we have seen the pay cap go for the police, is it possible that it might reflect that the pay cap for teachers needs to be lifted? If so, will the department then ensure that the Treasury funds that rather than it coming out of the money announced in this funding formula? I would hate to campaign to raise the pay cap for teachers but then see the ensuing problems as schools scramble to try to fund 0.5% from what, certainly in some of the urban areas, will be quite a limited extra amount of money.
Schools Update: National Funding Formula — House of Lords, 2017-09-14
Topic: Education
Anthony Young (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on a fairer formula, although we will need to look at the repercussions. I still meet head teachers who are having to reduce the number of teachers and are under pressure as a result of national insurance, pensions and things like that. There is concern on that front. I have two other points to make. I presume, as we have not heard any reference to it, that the £50 million or so of funding for the extension of grammar schools has disappeared. I hope that will not be a further oncost, as I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on that. I read the couple of paragraphs in the document, but does this sustain the existing pupil premium or slightly increase it? Can the Minister just confirm that? It certainly makes a significant difference in my primary school budget. I have already declared an interest in a previous debate as chair of the governing body.
Space Industry Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2017-07-12
Topic: Government Operations
Richard Rosser (Labour, Centre-left): I thank the Minister for that comment. It had certainly been my understanding that it was not going to be in September anyway. What is of concern—given the extent of devolved powers, with further information still to come—is if on the first or second day back in October, the Committee stage of the Bill is scheduled. What I meant by breathing space was a breathing space in October before we start Committee.
Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices — House of Lords, 2017-07-11
Topic: Labor
David Edward Lea (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I think it is apparent that this side of the House would not agree with the Minister’s throwaway line that, "the system is working quite well" That is not the theme of the report. Nor is it true, if one looks at manifold evidence from public opinion polls, that job security is not prevalent as an issue and a worry for almost all classes of worker. It is being economical with the truth to make generalisations about workers preferring casual hours to guaranteed hours. There may be some people—students are a good example, out of term time or even in it in some cases—who prefer such hours, but does the Minister accept that you cannot get a mortgage on a zero-hours contract? Has the Minister done any research on whether that is true? If not, will he do some research and let the House know, perhaps in a letter? Is it possible to get a mortgage on a zero-hours contract? If it is not, does that not mean that we live in a two-class society—with different types of contract of employment —in respect of one of people’s most vital needs: to be able to get a mortgage, with those on such contracts falling away financially from people who are able to buy a house?
Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices — House of Lords, 2017-07-11
Topic: Labor
Patricia Hollis (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I think it is right to say that students and early-retired people welcome flexibility, but there is a real problem for people, particularly lone parents with children and so on, in maintaining an acceptable and predictable income in a zero-hours contract economy. Many retailers use zero-hours contracts, yet senior managers in retail have said that because demand is predictable, zero-hours contracts in retail are lazy management. What will the Minister say to the lone parent who, as a cinema usherette, does not know from week to week whether she is going to work four hours a week or 34? Will he, in that case, take it up with his colleagues in the DWP, because the benefits which make her income possible are always falling behind her hours and she therefore never knows from week to week whether she can afford to get the fridge repaired or buy her son his trainers?
Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices — House of Lords, 2017-07-11
Topic: Labor
Rita Donaghy (Labour, Centre-left): I welcome the statement that, "the best way to achieve better work is through good corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations" That is an extremely good summary, and if that is what the eventual recommendations and implementation achieve, it will have been a historic report. I have three brief questions. First, one of the problems about our low-wage economy is that we are getting a lower tax base. Therefore, this is not necessarily good news for HMRC; a lot of the so-called independent contractors and bogus self-employed do not pay very much in the way of income tax Secondly, there has been increasing confusion between the statutory national minimum wage and the national living wage; people are getting very confused about those two things, to the detriment of both issues. Thirdly, there are recommendations about changing the remit of the Low Pay Commission—I declare an interest as one of the founding commissioners in 1998. One of the reasons for the tripartite success of the commission is that it has focused on a fairly narrow range of issues. My concern is that if these were widened to include quality of work on a sectoral basis, it might eventually weaken the power of its recommendations. Would the Minister care to comment on that?
Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices — House of Lords, 2017-07-11
Topic: Macroeconomics
Clive Brooke (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, I have not read the report yet, so I would be grateful if the Minister could put me right. Not all western countries are in the difficulties that the States and the Anglo-Saxon type economies are in. Sweden does not have the kinds of problems that we have. It has some, but not on the scale that we have. The major difference between Sweden and similar countries is that the difference in income between those at the top and those at the bottom has not widened in the way that it has in the UK and the States. To start to address this, we have to look at that as well—not just the quality of the work but the totality of the distribution of income in the workforce. Do the Government have any plans for doing that?
Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices — House of Lords, 2017-07-11
Topic: Labor
Christopher Lennie (Labour, Centre-left): The Minister expressed surprise that there had been so little change in employment over the period: 63% and 64% were the figures given. But that masks the fact that currently in the north-east something like 70% of all new work—jobs growth—is defined as insecure work. Does that not indicate the need for more assertive action from the Government to address what is very rapidly coming round the corner at us?