Dear colleagues,
I see I've been tripped up by the fact that if you use "reply" to respond to
a contributor, your message goes to everyone on the list. Honest, I did
know this!!
Sincere apols for the additional mailbox clutter. It hope it's just the
dismal weather and not consultation overload!
Best wishes,
Faith
-----------------------
Faith Marchal
HR Consultant - Diversity
Anglia Ruskin University
Bishop Hall Lane
Chelmsford CM1 1SQ
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
tel: 01245 493131, ext 4928
----- Original Message -----
From: "Faith Marchal" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: Age legislation - impact on students
> Hi, Marcella,
>
> Pragmatist that I am, I figured the legislation would eventually be
> interpreted as an "all student" approach -- though even if it wasn't, I'd
> probably promote it as such internally. However, I also figured it might
be
> useful, nitpicker that I am (!), to flag up the seeming inconsistency in
the
> draft legislation.
>
> The other part of the loophole is that employers can lawfully set
retirement
> ages, at least until 2011. This means that students studying for
particular
> professions can lawfully be "lawfully excluded from that profession on
> grounds of age", if they qualify close to or post retirement age. Working
> back, therefore, are they protected during their studies?
>
> Hey ho . . . the joys of consultation!
>
> See you soon,
> Faith
> --------------------------
> Faith Marchal
> HR Consultant - Diversity
> Anglia Ruskin University (note brand new name, just announced!)
> Bishop Hall Lane
> Chelmsford CM1 1SQ
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> tel: 01245 493131, ext 4928
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marcella Wright" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Age legislation - impact on students
>
>
> > Hi Robyn
> >
> > Thanks for your prompt reply yesterday and also clarification re the
rules
> > on loans.
> > In response to your e-mail below just a quickie to say I see it the same
> > way as you. The draft regs say that only print in italics is different
> > from the regs on religion or belief and sexual orientation-section 22 is
> > not in italics and we have all been told that the earlier regs included
> all
> > HE students. Although the regs don't cover goods and services my
> > interpretation of section 22 is that students might have be able to use
> > these if e.g. they were unfairly treated in say accommodation. But a
> > conference delegate having the same problems couldn't get use the regs
to
> > get legal redress.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Marcella
> > At 13:26 05/10/2005 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Dear colleagues,
> > >
> > >Apologies for the delay in responding to Faith Marchal's original query
> > >and subsequent contributions from list members - Liz Sutherland and
> myself
> > >have both been away from the office for some days.
> > >
> > >We agree that the issue Faith raises is one which is not clear from the
> > >DTI's draft regulations and consultation documents, and we will be
asking
> > >for clarification from the DTI when we make our own response to the
their
> > >final consultation. It isn't clear where students' rights are codified
> in
> > >the draft regulations - but what we think might be the DTI's intention
> is
> > >that HEIs as education providers are covered by the section
specifically
> > >relating to FEIs and HEIs (draft regulation 22) rather than the
> vocational
> > >training section (draft regulation 19).
> > >
> > >Our current understanding is that ALL students will be covered by the
> > >forthcoming age equality legislation, in their applications to
> > >institutions and throughout their studies, regardless of the course
they
> > >are studying. This seems to be reflected in draft regulation 22 which
> > >I've paraphrased here (and which doesn't use the phrase 'vocational
> > >training'):
> > >
> > >- It is unlawful for the governing body of an institute of further or
> > >higher education to discriminate against a person in the terms on which
> it
> > >offers to admit him to the establishment as a student; by refusing or
> > >deliberately not accepting an application for his admission to the
> > >establishment as a student; or, where he is a student of the
> > >establishment, in the way it affords him access to any benefits, by
> > >refusing or deliberately not affording him access to them, or by
> excluding
> > >him from the establishment or subjecting him to any other detriment.
> This
> > >doesn't apply to students who, having completed a particular
(vocational)
> > >course, would be lawfully excluded from that profession on the grounds
of
> > >age (ie if a genuine occupational requirement could be cited by a
> > >potential future employer. However the only example of a genuine
> > >occupational requirement the DTI have proposed so far will apply to the
> > >acting profession). -
> > >
> > >Draft regulation 19 refers separately to vocational training. This may
> > >relate to the vocational training offered by institutions such as
> > >Jobcentres, rather than by HEIs. However, in our response to the DTI's
> > >consultation we're going to specifically ask about this and also about
> > >responsibility towards students on work placements, which may be shared
> by
> > >HEI/ placement provider.
> > >
> > >In relation to student loans, we heard from the Department for
Education
> > >and Skills earlier this year that they have reviewed the upper age
limit
> > >of 55 on loans for living costs for students in higher education. From
> > >September 2006, the upper limit for maintenance loans for new students
> > >will be age 60. For existing students who take out a loan for the first
> > >time in 2006 the limit will also be 60. This doesn't seem to chime
with
> > >the forthcoming age legislation, however the SLC may not have duties to
> > >students under the regulations.
> > >
> > >We intend that ECU's response to the DTI's final consultation will be
> > >posted on our website on 11 October, and we will notify the sector when
> > >this has happened. We really encourage individual HEIs to respond to
the
> > >DTI and raise these questions as well. The deadline for responses to
the
> > >DTI is Monday 17 October.
> > >
> > >With good wishes,
> > >
> > >Robyn Challis
> > >Policy Officer, Disability and Age team
> > >Equality Challenge Unit
> > >
> > >tel 020 7520 7066
> > >[log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: HE Administrators equal opportunities list
> > >[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Faith Marchal
> > >Sent: 28 September 2005 12:52
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Age legislation - impact on students
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear all,
> > >
> > >Is anyone else out there, like me, concerned about whether or not
> different
> > >student groups will be protected by the new Age legislation, based on
> their
> > >course of study?
> > >
> > > From the consultation document, it seems to me that students on
> programmes
> > >of study which are prerequisites to particular professions or
employment
> > >(for instance, teacher certification, health and social care courses,
> legal
> > >practice, and professional courses, e.g., CIPD, etc.) will be protected
> > >under the "vocational training" provisions, but not others. Am
reading
> > >this too literally, or what?
> > >
> > >Comments on the proverbial admin-eo postcard, please!
> > >
> > >Best wishes,
> > >Faith
> > >-------------------------
> > >Faith Marchal
> > >HR Consultant - Diversity
> > >Anglia Polytechnic University
> > >Bishop Hall Lane
> > >Chelmsford CM1 1SQ
> > >e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> > >tel: 01245 493131, ext 4928
> > >**********
> > >The Equality Challenge Unit promotes diversity and equality of
> opportunity
> > >for all who work or seek to work in higher education. We are sponsored
by
> > >the representative bodies (SCOP and Universities UK) and the four UK HE
> > >funding bodies.
> > >
> > >Although every effort is made to ensure that the information contained
> > >within this email is timely and accurate, the Equality Challenge Unit
> > >cannot be held responsible for any unintentional errors or omissions.
> > >
> > >The information provided in this email is not intended to be either
> > >legally binding or contractual in nature. Should you require more
> specific
> > >advice regarding the application of equalities legislation, it is
> > >recommended that you consult an appropriately qualified legal
> professional.
> > >
> > >This message is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient
you
> > >should not copy or disclose this message to anyone but should kindly
> > >notify the sender and delete the message. Opinions, conclusions and
> other
> > >information in this message which do not relate to the official
business
> > >of the ECU shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. No
> > >contracts shall be concluded by means of this e-mail. Neither ECU nor
> the
> > >sender accepts any responsibility for viruses. The administrator of
this
> > >e-mail service (Universities UK) reserves the right to access and
> disclose
> > >all messages sent over its e-mail system.
> > >**********
> >
> >
> > Marcella Wright
> > Head of the Equality Unit
> > Tel: 4982
> > Fax: 5094
> >
>
|