B1505 – Protection of Public Examinations Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#81
Report 1 month ago
#81
(Original post by ns_2)
I can confirm that the financial penalties for the centre will be removed for the second reading.
You guys need to do opposition more often, when you don't have the numbers to brute force things you stop being a danger to the house because you're actually forced to engage
1
yaseen1000
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 month ago
#82
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
undefined
What is this thread about?
This is a bill in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's a piece of proposed legislation that is currently being debated, and there's a good chance that the House will later vote on whether to pass it into TSR law. All are welcome and encouraged to ask questions about the bill's content and join in the debate – you don't have to be in a party or be an MP to do so.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


A
BILL
TO

fortify the legislative force against those who unduly compromise the sanctity of public examinations
undefined
BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1(X)Definitions
For the purposes of this Bill,
(X) (1) ‘public examinations’ shall refer to examinations approved by the relevant authority, including but not limited to General Certificates in Secondary Education (GCSEs), and General Certificates in Education (GCEs), conducted by approved examination bodies.
(X) (2) ‘relevant authority’ shall refer to Office for Qualifications and Examinations Regulations, colloquially referred to as Ofqual, the Department for Education, or any other associated department or agent of Her Majesty’s Government as specified by the Secretary of State.
(X) (3) ‘approved examination bodies’ shall refer to examination bodies approved by the relevant authority to conduct public examinations in the United Kingdom, including but not limited to:
(X) (X) (a) the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (“AQA”);
(X) (X) (b) the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment (“CCEA”);
(X) (X) (c) Pearson Education Limited (“Edexcel”);
(X) (X) (d) Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations (“OCR”);
(X) (X) (e) the Welsh Joint Education Committee (“WJEC”); and
(X) (X) (f) Cambridge Assessment International Education (“CIE”)
the Secretary of State retains the right to amend this list by secondary legislation.
(X) (4) ‘compromising public examinations’ shall refer to any act where an undue advantage may be gifted upon a candidate, or centre including but not limited to:-
(X) (X) (a) the early opening of any examination package sent by an approved examination body;
(X) (X) (b) the direct contravention of examination regulations as set out by the Joint Council for Qualifications (“JCQ”).;
(X) (X) (c) information transfer between senior examiners and non-authorised personnel; and
(X) (X) (d) technological efforts against the central servers of any approved examination body, or high ranking personnel of the aforementioned.

2(X)Compromising public examinations
(X) (1) It shall be an offence to compromise public examinations - whether through malicious intent or gross negligence.
(X) (2) An offence under this section does not negate the application of other offences, which may be sought concurrently or in series, notably offences of fraud, and theft.
(X) (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, and a fine equivalent to level 4 on the standard scale.

3(X)Personal and collective material gain
(X) (1) It shall be a further offence to compromise public examinations for the purposes of accentuating or engendering personal or collective material gain.
(X) (2) An offence under this section does not negate the application of other offences, which may be sought concurrently or in series, notably offences of fraud, and theft.
(X) (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, permanent disqualification from public office in the United Kingdom, and a fine equivalent to level 5 on the standard scale.

4(X)Centre offence
(X) (1) Where the sanctity of public examinations has been compromised by an individual, or group of individuals, and where inadequate mechanisms were in place to mitigate the extent of such a compromise - whether through malicious intent or gross negligence - the centre shall be liable for negligence.
(X) (2) A centre found liable for negligence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 500,000.00 GBP.
(X) (3) Where the sanctity of public examinations has been compromised by an individual, or group of individuals, for personal or collective material gain and where inadequate mechanisms were in place to mitigate the extent of such a compromise - whether through malicious intent or gross negligence - the centre shall be liable for gross negligence.
(X) (2) A centre found liable for gross negligence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five million GBP.

5(X)Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the The Protection of Public Examinations Bill.

Notes
Following recent, renewed leaks surrounding the final examination in the new Mathematics A-level offered by Pearson Edexcel, more substantive action has been designed to discourage said activity, and further punish complicity.

This Bill works to introduce new offences surrounding ‘compromising the sanctity of public examinations’ from the perspective of an individual (or group of individuals) and of the centre itself.

Nay, fining our under funded schools is unacceptable and will mostly likely impact the quality of education these schools can provide.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 month ago
#83
(Original post by yaseen1000)
Nay, fining our under funded schools is unacceptable and will mostly likely impact the quality of education these schools can provide.
Hear hear!!!
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 month ago
#84
(Original post by ns_2)
The penalties for the centre will be removed.

Punishments for individuals will remain.
At two and ten years respectively?
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 month ago
#85
(Original post by yaseen1000)
Nay, fining our under funded schools is unacceptable and will mostly likely impact the quality of education these schools can provide.
The fines are being removed for Second Reading.
1
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 month ago
#86
I hope the entire bill is withdrawn rather than go to a second reading. A public consultation is showing that the electorate are not supportive of this idea.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 month ago
#87
(Original post by 04MR17)
I hope the entire bill is withdrawn rather than go to a second reading. A public consultation is showing that the electorate are not supportive of this idea.
In a pool of just 31. (At time of writing)
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 month ago
#88
(Original post by CatusStarbright)
At two and ten years respectively?
The terms will be revised. Likely to no custodial sentence for those who do not do it for personal gain. Upto 2 for those who do.

There are likely going to be new clauses stating that those found liable for negligence can no longer be involved in the exam inviligation process, and in cases of personal gain, automatic suspension (with the possibility for termination) of their employment contracts.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 month ago
#89
Of course, we are happy to listen to recommendations.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 month ago
#90
(Original post by ns_2)
In a pool of just 31. (At time of writing)
Which is more than the number of people who've commented in this thread. :thumbsup:
0
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 month ago
#91
A strong NAY from me
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 month ago
#92
(Original post by ns_2)
Of course, we are happy to listen to recommendations.
I would advise you listen to the now 61 (at the time of writing) members of the electorate who oppose imprisonment of people who facilitate cheating. If you call that a small pool I would advise you that the only public consultation under your government consulted with exactly 50 members of the public.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 month ago
#93
(Original post by 04MR17)
I hope the entire bill is withdrawn rather than go to a second reading. A public consultation is showing that the electorate are not supportive of this idea.
The question is misleading, the question implies that it is those who cheat who are imprisoned, not those that leaked the papers.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#94
Report 1 month ago
#94
(Original post by ns_2)
In a pool of just 31. (At time of writing)
And your party has created policy on the basis of far fewer, IIRC about 5 responses.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#95
Report 1 month ago
#95
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The question is misleading, the question implies that it is those who cheat who are imprisoned, not those that leaked the papers.
This is clarified in the OP and several times throughout the thread.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#96
Report 1 month ago
#96
(Original post by 04MR17)
This is clarified in the OP and several times throughout the thread.
Where people don't look before voting, instead of writing a question that reflects what you're trying to ascertain you decided to load it to get the outcome desired.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#97
Report 1 month ago
#97
(Original post by ns_2)
The terms will be revised. Likely to no custodial sentence for those who do not do it for personal gain. Upto 2 for those who do.

There are likely going to be new clauses stating that those found liable for negligence can no longer be involved in the exam inviligation process, and in cases of personal gain, automatic suspension (with the possibility for termination) of their employment contracts.
I am pleased to hear of your plans to review these sentences, though I will of course be commenting afresh on this matter in the Second Reading
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#98
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#98
This bill is in cessation
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#99
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#99
This bill has gone to a second reading.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What's your favourite genre?

Rock (190)
24.05%
Pop (192)
24.3%
Jazz (30)
3.8%
Classical (46)
5.82%
Hip-Hop (150)
18.99%
Electronic (53)
6.71%
Indie (129)
16.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed