Show Search Form

Search Results

registered interest	true false
date	exactly: or between: and
answering body
answering dept id
answering dept short name
answering dept sort name
hansard heading
house id
legislature	pref label
question text
tabling member constituency
tabling member printed
uin
answer	is ministerial correction true false date of answer exactly: or between: and answer text answering member constituency answering member printed grouped question UIN question first answered answering member label
tabling member	label

Search

1140175

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Further Education
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the potential merits in extending consumer protection law to cover further education courses.
tabling member constituency	Canterbury
tabling member printed	Rosie Duffield
uin	279134
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>An assessment of the potential merits of extending consumer protection law to cover further education (FE) courses has not been made. However, the government promotes high quality FE within a regulatory framework, that aims to protect the rights of learners accessing FE courses.</p><p> </p><p>FE college corporations operate as independent charities and are subject to robust accountability arrangements for the public funding they receive. Ofsted inspects and publicly reports on the quality of education within FE providers. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) allocates significant annual funding to providers of education and skills training for young people and adults. ESFA holds providers to account for their performance to ensure they consistently raise standards.</p><p> </p><p>The FE Choices learner satisfaction survey 2017-18 captures learners’ experiences of their college or training organisation. The most recent survey was published by the department on 19 July and reports that 82% of learners were ‘likely’ or ‘extremely likely’ to recommend their learning provider to friends or family.</p><p>FE providers must also ensure that complaint handling processes and practices are accessible, clear and fair to learners.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Guildford answering member printed Anne Milton question first answered 23/07/2019 07:13:04 answering member 1523 label Biography information for Anne Milton
tabling member	4616 label Biography information for Rosie Duffield

1140357

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Higher Education: Admissions
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of requiring universities in England to use contextual admissions tools to widen participation in higher education.
tabling member constituency	Newcastle-under-Lyme
tabling member printed	Paul Farrelly
uin	278922
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>Widening access and participation in higher education is a priority for this government. This means that everyone with the capability to succeed in higher education should have the opportunity to participate, regardless of their background or where they grew up.</p><p>We have made real progress in ensuring universities are open to all, with record rates of disadvantaged 18 year olds in higher education. However, we are aware that more needs to be done to ensure that background isn’t a barrier to realising potential in higher education.</p><p>Many higher education providers are already using contextual admissions, to support widening access, and the government supports this.</p><p>It’s important that higher education providers use good quality and meaningful data to identify disadvantage and under-representation. We encourage institutions to use a range of measures to identify disadvantage and under-representation, including individual-level indicators, area data (such as POLAR, Index of Multiple Deprivation or ACORN), school data, intersectional data such as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service's (UCAS) Multiple Equality Measure and participation in outreach activities. The department is continuing to work with the Office for Students, UCAS and sector representatives to further explore how we can support universities to improve and enhance access to data.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Kingswood answering member printed Chris Skidmore question first answered 23/07/2019 07:33:37 answering member 4021 label Biography information for Chris Skidmore
tabling member	1436 label Biography information for Paul Farrelly

1140386

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	National Retraining Scheme
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, with reference to the get help to retrain scheme, whether the digital service will include the assessment of adults' (a) qualifications and (b) skills.
tabling member constituency	Blackpool South
tabling member printed	Gordon Marsden
uin	278909
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>Get Help to Retrain is the first of a series of products that will make up the full National Retraining Scheme (NRS). We are expecting the NRS to evolve and grow as we learn better what best works.</p><p>With support from qualified National Careers Service advisers, the service will support adults to understand which skills they have from their current role and which further skills would be required for a potential new, better job.</p><p>In addition, the service helps people to find training opportunities that may help the user to bridge the skills gap to a new role, initially consisting of training currently available and later including more bespoke offerings. It will also direct users to local job opportunities that could be within their reach.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Guildford answering member printed Anne Milton question first answered 23/07/2019 07:27:21 answering member 1523 label Biography information for Anne Milton
tabling member	465 label Biography information for Gordon Marsden

1140389

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Further Education: Fees and Charges
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what recent discussions he has had with the office for students on registration fees for further education colleges.
tabling member constituency	Blackpool South
tabling member printed	Gordon Marsden
uin	278910
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>All providers are being treated equitably.</p><p> </p><p>We consulted with all providers, including further education (FE) colleges, twice, on the introduction of registration fees (from December 2016 until March 2017, and from October 2017 until December 2017). The Office for Students (OfS) separately consulted on the model for deciding how student numbers should be determined to inform the fee levels. It published the outcomes of this consultation in October 2018. Following the consultation processes, a number of additional bands were added for smaller providers compared with the original proposal. The costs for a very small provider have decreased from the second phase of the consultation, where a provider with 0-50 full-time equivalent student numbers, the lowest band, was proposed to pay £18,200. Providers with full-time equivalent student numbers of no more than 25 will now pay £12,300, and providers with more than 25 but no more than 50 (full time equivalent) will pay £15,350.</p><p> </p><p>We also considered the impact of fees more widely and published an impact assessment in March 2019. The impact assessment considered higher education providers – including FE colleges – taxpayers, the government and students. The impact assessment report stated:</p><p>‘We have … analysed Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) college accounts data for 120 FE colleges with Higher Education Funding Council for England funded learners, that have applied to register and found that FE colleges would be paying on average 0.2% of their total income in registration fees. This ranges from 0.05% to 1.3% of total income but with just one provider paying more than 1%. … these proportions are very small and highly unlikely to impede competition in the higher education market.’</p><p> </p><p>We have committed to a full review of registration fees after 2 years, when the impact of the fees on all providers will be clearer.</p><p> </p><p>I meet regularly with the Chair and officials from the OfS to discuss a wide range of issues, including the financial health of all parts of the higher education sector, which is kept under constant review by the OfS.</p> answering member constituency Kingswood answering member printed Chris Skidmore grouped question UIN 278912 278913 question first answered 23/07/2019 07:17:32 answering member 4021 label Biography information for Chris Skidmore
tabling member	465 label Biography information for Gordon Marsden

1140393

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	National Retraining Scheme
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the roll-out of the Get Help to Retrain scheme (a) in the Liverpool City Region and (b) to all eligible adults in England by 2020.
tabling member constituency	Blackpool South
tabling member printed	Gordon Marsden
uin	278911
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>In October 2018, the government announced a £100 million initial commitment to continue to test, learn and develop the National Retraining Scheme. This has allowed us to start delivering the first parts of the scheme in the Liverpool City Region. Get Help to Retrain will be expanded to more people and more areas throughout the testing phase before being made available to all eligible adults in England in 2020. In addition to this, we are continuing to develop new products in parallel to the testing of Get Help to Retrain, which will collectively make up the complete service.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Guildford answering member printed Anne Milton question first answered 23/07/2019 07:29:51 answering member 1523 label Biography information for Anne Milton
tabling member	465 label Biography information for Gordon Marsden

1140394

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Further Education: Fees and Charges
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the effect of the office for students registration fees on the financial viability of further education colleges.
tabling member constituency	Blackpool South
tabling member printed	Gordon Marsden
uin	278912
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>All providers are being treated equitably.</p><p> </p><p>We consulted with all providers, including further education (FE) colleges, twice, on the introduction of registration fees (from December 2016 until March 2017, and from October 2017 until December 2017). The Office for Students (OfS) separately consulted on the model for deciding how student numbers should be determined to inform the fee levels. It published the outcomes of this consultation in October 2018. Following the consultation processes, a number of additional bands were added for smaller providers compared with the original proposal. The costs for a very small provider have decreased from the second phase of the consultation, where a provider with 0-50 full-time equivalent student numbers, the lowest band, was proposed to pay £18,200. Providers with full-time equivalent student numbers of no more than 25 will now pay £12,300, and providers with more than 25 but no more than 50 (full time equivalent) will pay £15,350.</p><p> </p><p>We also considered the impact of fees more widely and published an impact assessment in March 2019. The impact assessment considered higher education providers – including FE colleges – taxpayers, the government and students. The impact assessment report stated:</p><p>‘We have … analysed Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) college accounts data for 120 FE colleges with Higher Education Funding Council for England funded learners, that have applied to register and found that FE colleges would be paying on average 0.2% of their total income in registration fees. This ranges from 0.05% to 1.3% of total income but with just one provider paying more than 1%. … these proportions are very small and highly unlikely to impede competition in the higher education market.’</p><p> </p><p>We have committed to a full review of registration fees after 2 years, when the impact of the fees on all providers will be clearer.</p><p> </p><p>I meet regularly with the Chair and officials from the OfS to discuss a wide range of issues, including the financial health of all parts of the higher education sector, which is kept under constant review by the OfS.</p> answering member constituency Kingswood answering member printed Chris Skidmore grouped question UIN 278910 278913 question first answered 23/07/2019 07:17:32 answering member 4021 label Biography information for Chris Skidmore
tabling member	465 label Biography information for Gordon Marsden

1140395

registered interest
date	18/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Further Education: Fees and Charges
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of the introduction of a separate office for students registration fee banding for stand alone further education colleges.
tabling member constituency	Blackpool South
tabling member printed	Gordon Marsden
uin	278913
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>All providers are being treated equitably.</p><p> </p><p>We consulted with all providers, including further education (FE) colleges, twice, on the introduction of registration fees (from December 2016 until March 2017, and from October 2017 until December 2017). The Office for Students (OfS) separately consulted on the model for deciding how student numbers should be determined to inform the fee levels. It published the outcomes of this consultation in October 2018. Following the consultation processes, a number of additional bands were added for smaller providers compared with the original proposal. The costs for a very small provider have decreased from the second phase of the consultation, where a provider with 0-50 full-time equivalent student numbers, the lowest band, was proposed to pay £18,200. Providers with full-time equivalent student numbers of no more than 25 will now pay £12,300, and providers with more than 25 but no more than 50 (full time equivalent) will pay £15,350.</p><p> </p><p>We also considered the impact of fees more widely and published an impact assessment in March 2019. The impact assessment considered higher education providers – including FE colleges – taxpayers, the government and students. The impact assessment report stated:</p><p>‘We have … analysed Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) college accounts data for 120 FE colleges with Higher Education Funding Council for England funded learners, that have applied to register and found that FE colleges would be paying on average 0.2% of their total income in registration fees. This ranges from 0.05% to 1.3% of total income but with just one provider paying more than 1%. … these proportions are very small and highly unlikely to impede competition in the higher education market.’</p><p> </p><p>We have committed to a full review of registration fees after 2 years, when the impact of the fees on all providers will be clearer.</p><p> </p><p>I meet regularly with the Chair and officials from the OfS to discuss a wide range of issues, including the financial health of all parts of the higher education sector, which is kept under constant review by the OfS.</p> answering member constituency Kingswood answering member printed Chris Skidmore grouped question UIN 278910 278912 question first answered 23/07/2019 07:17:32 answering member 4021 label Biography information for Chris Skidmore
tabling member	465 label Biography information for Gordon Marsden

1139277

registered interest
date	16/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Post-18 Education and Funding Review
house id	1
legislature	25259 pref label House of Commons
question text	To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether he has formally responded to the letter on the implementation of the recommendations of the Augar Review signed by 203 College Principals.
tabling member constituency	Rochdale
tabling member printed	Tony Lloyd
uin	277649
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>I can confirm that we have received the letter from my hon. Friend, the Member for Witney, Robert Courts, and 203 College Principals and I am responding to this letter. My hon. Friend, the Member for Witney, Robert Courts, and 203 College Principals shall receive their response shortly.</p><p> </p> answering member constituency Guildford answering member printed Anne Milton question first answered 23/07/2019 07:23:17 answering member 1523 label Biography information for Anne Milton
tabling member	450 label Biography information for Tony Lloyd

1139078

registered interest
date	15/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Department for Education: Sanitation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Agnew of Oulton on 11 July (HL16827, HL16828, HL16829, and HL16830), which people they consider would feel excluded (1) by separate communal male and female toilets, and (2) as a result of both toilets being gender-neutral.
tabling member printed	Lord Lucas
uin	HL17163
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>The department has not identified any particular group of visitors that might feel excluded by separate communal male and female toilets or by both toilets being gender-neutral. The current approach for visitors supports individual choice rather than pre-supposing that particular groups of individuals have set or pre-determined preferences.</p><p> </p><p>With this in mind, no estimates have been made regarding the percentage of visitors who may feel excluded by separate communal male and female toilets, and of both toilets being gender-neutral. In addition, because visitors are served by a range of different toilet types, we would not expect individuals to feel excluded. Visitors have not fed back any concerns or sense of exclusion regarding the provision. The department rarely receives feedback on the visitors’ area and where it does, it will take action.</p><p> </p><p>In terms of the conversion of one toilet to gender-neutral status, while leaving the other as female only in the communal visitor area of Sanctuary Buildings, we are currently planning a major refurbishment of the visitor area. As part of that, we will review the facilities including the distribution of single sex and gender-neutral toilets.</p><p> </p><p>No discussions with the cleaning staff in Sanctuary Buildings have been held regarding the condition of the gender-neutral toilets in the communal visitor area compared to that of the female-only toilets. We have set standards of cleanliness across all facilities. We have not been made aware that these standards have not been met in the visitors’ toilets. We will monitor this, and take action, if required.</p> answering member printed Lord Agnew of Oulton grouped question UIN HL17164 HL17165 HL17166 question first answered 23/07/2019 11:07:56 answering member 4689 label Biography information for Lord Agnew of Oulton
tabling member	1879 label Biography information for Lord Lucas

1139079

registered interest
date	15/07/2019
answering body	Department for Education
answering dept id	60
answering dept short name	Education
answering dept sort name	Education
hansard heading	Department for Education: Sanitation
house id	2
legislature	25277 pref label House of Lords
question text	To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Lord Agnew of Oulton on 11 July (HL16827, HL16828, HL16829, and HL16830), what estimate they have made of the percentage of visitors who would feel excluded (1) by separate communal male and female toilets, and (2) as a result of both toilets being gender-neutral.
tabling member printed	Lord Lucas
uin	HL17164
answer	answer is ministerial correction date of answer 23/07/2019 answer text <p>The department has not identified any particular group of visitors that might feel excluded by separate communal male and female toilets or by both toilets being gender-neutral. The current approach for visitors supports individual choice rather than pre-supposing that particular groups of individuals have set or pre-determined preferences.</p><p> </p><p>With this in mind, no estimates have been made regarding the percentage of visitors who may feel excluded by separate communal male and female toilets, and of both toilets being gender-neutral. In addition, because visitors are served by a range of different toilet types, we would not expect individuals to feel excluded. Visitors have not fed back any concerns or sense of exclusion regarding the provision. The department rarely receives feedback on the visitors’ area and where it does, it will take action.</p><p> </p><p>In terms of the conversion of one toilet to gender-neutral status, while leaving the other as female only in the communal visitor area of Sanctuary Buildings, we are currently planning a major refurbishment of the visitor area. As part of that, we will review the facilities including the distribution of single sex and gender-neutral toilets.</p><p> </p><p>No discussions with the cleaning staff in Sanctuary Buildings have been held regarding the condition of the gender-neutral toilets in the communal visitor area compared to that of the female-only toilets. We have set standards of cleanliness across all facilities. We have not been made aware that these standards have not been met in the visitors’ toilets. We will monitor this, and take action, if required.</p> answering member printed Lord Agnew of Oulton grouped question UIN HL17163 HL17165 HL17166 question first answered 23/07/2019 11:07:56 answering member 4689 label Biography information for Lord Agnew of Oulton
tabling member	1879 label Biography information for Lord Lucas