| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 335
Secretary of State has decided that he wants to take on and beat the teaching profession for ideological reasons, rather than being prepared to listen to the arguments of those involved directly with pupils and, in his search for consensus, to establish a broader base for the education of both the under-16s and the over-16s. I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) : if we are to bring about the revolution that education needs, we must begin to seek consensus in earnest. A consensual approach must be adopted not only by the Opposition parties-- whose opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority in educational circles --but by the Government. We must seek to break down the artificial barriers that fail so many young people, and begin to replace them with the methods and mechanisms that will ensure access to the best possible qualifications for all our young people.Mr. Pawsey : Conservative Members are enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech--although I shall not comment on its content.
The tripartite system we exported to Germany actually works. Everyone says so : people even say that the German economic miracle is a result of the country's education system. If it works so well there, why should we not import it back into the United Kingdom, and make it work here?
Mr. Lloyd : There is a simple answer to that. The Germans do not make the mistake of devaluing certain forms of educational achievement.
Mr. Pawsey : Why should we do so?
Mr. Lloyd : As long as we retain a system that reifies such a devaluation--a system that is hierarchical from beginning to end--those who have failed at the various stages involved in that system will inevitably be regarded as failures, both by themselves and by society generally. We must get away from that approach. We must introduce the concept of comprehensive education not only in the institutional sense but in the broadest sense. We must provide access to education for all young people.
The German experience is especially interesting. Of course we should begin to value technological education. We are--perhaps I should say, we were--a technological nation, but we devalue, for example, the engineer. It is a matter of record that engineers leaving our universities are not offered the same rates of pay or opportunities as others. Not many engineers make their way into the board rooms of industry--
Mr. Jamieson : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lloyd : May I finish this point? A liberal education is a perfectly reasonable form of education and fits people for many things in life, but those who train as engineers should also be able to make their way into the boardrooms.
Mr. Jamieson : The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that we should return to the tripartite system. If there is supposed to be pressure for a return to that system, with testing at 11 and the reintroduction of secondary moderns, why are parents not calling for the return of selection?
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is not here, because he could recount the experience of 1984, when a Tory council tried to reintroduce the 11-plus, which caused a massive protest
Column 336
from Tory voters in the borough. They strongly resisted the return of the 11-plus, because they have an excellent comprehensive system which they do not wish to destroy.Mr. Lloyd : My hon. Friend makes an important point. When a return to selective education has been suggested, it has usually been resisted not only by parents but often by Conservative councillors, who are not persuaded of the benefit of such a change. I speak with some feeling about selective education because, as I said, the area in which I live retains that system. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has a similar experience. It is a bad system, which fails far too many people.
During our debates, it has been constructive to note that the schools which have so far sought to opt out have not been the comprehensive schools in the other boroughs of Greater Manchester but the secondary moderns in Trafford. They are so dissatisfied with their second-rate treatment from the Conservative local education authority that they want to get out of its control. One school in particular, not in my constituency, has successfully balloted to opt out on the specific propsectus that it will seek a change of status from secondary modern to comprehensive. It believes that it is the only way it can attract young people in sufficient numbers to remain viable in competition with other schools in the area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) said, there is no demand across the board for a tripartite system. I do not want to put words into the mouths of Conservative Members, but I did not detect a massive groundswell among them in favour of its return. It is antithetical to what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was saying. He may wish to say that institutions are prepared to accept that system, but it was not in keeping with the spirit of his remarks. Having mentioned him, I shall give way.
Mr. Bowis : We are seeking common ground, but uniformity is not necessarily the best way forward. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) would give a little on the uniformity of the structure of the school system, he would do much more for education. We seek a great variety of schools--city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools, magnet schools, single-sex schools, co-educational schools, Church schools, non- denominational schools and others. His party tends to want one type of school for all children ; he could give way on that uniformity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech, suggesting that it is perhaps time to examine the national curriculum to ascertain where we should be clawing it in to allow a greater range of teaching over and above the core. That would lead to the measures on which this debate is centred.
Mr. Lloyd : I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that is paramount nonsense. We do not want to institutionalise the divisions between schools to prevent access to those who are perfectly capable and should be allowed to benefit from the opportunities available. Of course there should be variety in our education system, but variety driven by a coalition of parents, the young people themselves, teachers, the professionals to whom we entrust the future of our young people and even, dare I say it, institutions such as local education authorities. Those authorities can structure
Column 337
careers services, which can give the quality advice, which youngsters are clearly not getting at the moment. We should be tackling the failure rates in, for example, further education, as set out in a recent Audit Commission report.Of course there should be variety within our system. Individual children have different aptitudes and orientations and we should welcome that fact and glory in that diversity. However, the way in which we respond to that diversity should not, as so often happens now, exclude children from poor backgrounds or those from the inner cities and ethnic minorities. They do not have access to the opportunities to which they are entitled.
Mr. Don Foster : The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he chided the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the desire to institutionalise divisions. Is not the debate about trying to break down those divisions? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a belief that only academic work is important? [ Hon. Members :-- "No."] Conservative Members are saying no. I accept that some have been involved in the development of vocational education, but it is still not given parity of esteem, which is the crucial issue. It is extremely important that even children who are following highly academic courses have an opportunity to be involved in vocational education, which is why the amendment is vital. We want parity of esteem between academic and vocational work, instead of the current division in attitude among Conservative Members between vocational and academic qualifications.
Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right. Such parity of esteem would apply in our better public schools, because the idea that expensive public schools would fail their pupils by denying them access to vocational education is ridiculous. Parents would not tolerate that or be prepared to fork out money for such schooling.
We are prepared to seek consensus with those who genuinely want to break down the divisions and who want the parity of esteem which exists in Germany, which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned. However, we cannot seek consensus with those whose actions, if not their motivation, merely institutionalise the divisions and deny some young people access to vocational and non-vocational education in our publicly funded system. That is the reality of education today, which is why it is so important that the amendment is accepted--and why the Labour party will vote for it.
Mr. Patrick Thompson : I am grateful for the opportunity to say a brief word about the amendment. I have been interested to listen to the debate so far, and occasionally I have almost experienced a meeting of minds with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). At the beginning of his speech he talked about the importance of emphasising vocational education. There I totally agree with him, and with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who also stressed the importance of vocational education when he moved the amendment. I suspect that my hon. Friends accept those remarks.
Despite the Manchester connection, however, the meeting of minds does not usually last long. The hon. Member for Stretford suffers from a failure of imagination. Like so many Opposition Members, he seems
Column 338
unable to visualise any kind of education other than comprehensive education supervised by local education authorities. As I have said before, there are many good comprehensive schools and local education authorities--but the Opposition suffer from a failure of imagination, in that they are always coming back to defend the status quo. They refuse to accept the excellent points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others. It is that failure of imagination that causes the Opposition problems.6 pm
I hope that at least we agree on the funadamental importance of vocational education, as emphasised by the hon. Members for Stretford and for Bath. I, too, want to emphasise its importance, but I differ with the hon. Member for Bath and feel that his amendment is wrong. He gave the game away himself when he argued at some length that, in spite of recent Government moves to simplify and compress the national curriculum, it still covered too wide a range of subjects and activities. Indeed it does--so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in his desire to move further in the opposite direction from that suggested by the hon. Member for Bath. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's idea--I shall give way to him in a moment if I am misunderstanding it--is an ever-expanding national curriculum designed to achieve some kind of hypothetical parity of esteem.
I am highly suspicious when people start talking about parity of esteem in education. Such phrases are traps into which politicians fall. They are totally meaningless.
Mr. Foster rose --
Mr. Thompson : If I am misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman, I will give way to him and then respond to what he says.
Mr. Foster : If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty understanding phrases such as "parity of esteem" he should talk to many of his hon. Friends who have used that phrase in speeches. It has also been used in many documents issued by the Conservative party. The concept of parity of esteem is well accepted by the vast majority of people in the education world. It makes us sad that the hon. Gentleman sees vocational education as merely another little subject by itself to be squeezed into the already jam -packed national curriculum. The simple point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman and to his right hon. and hon. Friends is that the national curriculum is already massively overloaded and allows none of that diversity in individual schools that Conservative Members want to see. It is perfectly possible significantly to diminish
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. This is a very long intervention.
Mr. Thompson : I think that I have picked up the general drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, without his pursuing it further. He has- -possibly deliberately--misunderstood what I said about parity of esteem. Whenever my hon. Friends refer to parity of esteem I always agree with them, because they are using the phrase correctly.
Column 339
However, the hon. Gentleman has again said something with which I agree--that the national curriculum is overloaded. Some problems have arisen, and the debate between the Government, the local authorities and the schools is valid. We should move further towards slimming down the national curriculum--the Government have already made moves in that direction, and some of my hon. Friends have referred to it. Speaking for myself, and from my experience as a teacher--Mr. Tony Lloyd : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thompson : May I finish my point first? I hope that we shall have a meeting of minds in a moment.
We should be moving in the direction of basic standards, not only those required for further progress in academic education but also as they are required for movement into vocational education. The hon. Member for Bath, with the best of intentions, has introduced a red herring into the debate, and his amendment is ill advised. Mr. Lloyd rose--
Mr. Thompson : Despite the pressure of time, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stretford, because I referred to his speech.
Mr. Lloyd : The debate may be more important than people imagine, because there is clearly much more of a meeting of minds than might have been expected. Of course we agree with the concept of basic standards, especially when the hon. Gentleman explains that basic standards are not seen in terms of academic subjects alone--that is most important. May I put him on the spot and ask him a question? He is right to talk about the need to slim down the national curriculum. Can he tell us what movement the Government have made in that direction? We have yet to detect any. That is not a flippant question ; it is serious. If we genuinely thought that the Government were moving, that would be a matter for rejoicing.
Mr. Thompson : I have detected certain signs of movement from the Government--[ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to elaborate on that when he responds to the debate. [Interruption.] There is a meeting of minds here, because I would press my hon. Friend to go even further in slimming down the national curriculum--so let us not have a disagreement across the Floor of the House about that. I suspect that if he did so we could move away from some of the stresses and strains in schools of which hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware.
Mr. Win Griffiths rose--
Mr. Thompson : No, pressure of time prevents me from giving way now.
The amendment of the hon. Member for Bath, although moved with the best of intentions, is ill advised. If there is basic education in elementary mathematics, that will lead pupils on not only to academic progress in mathematics but to technical and vocational education. If there is basic education in English, spelling and grammar--I use those terms proudly--that will help pupils to move on into clerical activity, secretarial work and more advanced forms of management training. Basic language skills, too, will be of tremendous value when pupils move on to vocational training of one sort or another.
Column 340
There is a meeting of minds in the House and elsewhere on the desperate importance to the nation of encouraging more and better vocational education--I know that the Government seek to do that in all sorts of ways which are not the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, I shall finish now--I wanted to be brief--by saying that the amendment is ill advised and that I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government and reject it.Mr. Stephen Byers (Wallsend) : I had not intended to speak in the debate, but so many important points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that I decided to make a brief contribution to a useful discussion on an important issue. One of the reasons why our education system has been seen as a failure compared with those of other countries is the division between vocational and academic education. All hon. Members want that division to be removed, and in the past few years steps have been taken in an effort to remove it. It was initiatives by local education authorities which began the process. The Government seized upon the idea and introduced a technical and vocational education initiative in the mid-1980s, making funds available for local authorities to bid for to provide vocational courses in secondary schools. Many authorities had already begun that process, but they welcomed the prospect of Government financial support to carry it forward.
It is interesting to compare our approach with that of Germany, for example, where the academic/vocational divide is not seen in terms of academic education being reserved for the most able pupils while vocational education is for the less able. That does not happen in Germany, where the most able children feel free to embark on vocational courses. There is often a real mix between the academic and the vocational, and one side is not seen as having greater priority than the other. That is one reason why Opposition Members would like to look closely at the German system so that we can perhaps develop in that direction.
Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I was a little puzzled when the hon. Gentleman began to elaborate on the division in education in Britain and then praised Germany. In Germany there are separate schools for academic and technological education. I was interested in the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument because one of the major problems in Britain which is almost unique in Europe is our adhesion--in my view, misguided--to comprehensive education. I suspect that, to achieve the best technological and academic education opportunities, we shall have to follow the German model and abandon comprehensive education.
Mr. Byers : That is an important subject which I should like to discuss, but I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the debate. I am mindful that the Minister wishes to speak for a particular length of time.
I was seeking to point out that, although in Britain the academic is seen to be the preserve of the most able while the less able follow vocational training, in Germany that division does not exist. The most able students often follow vocational training. Comprehensive education can include academic and vocational training and the most able and the less able students can choose either of those options.
We have to take a radical approach to A-levels, which totally dominate our education system and all too often
Column 341
are the dead hand on curriculum development. One reason for our failure has been the gold standard of the A-level. The Government alone stand by the A-level. Everyone else is saying that it has to be changed.We also need to address the structure of Government. It is not appropriate to have a Department for Education but for training to be the responsibility of the Department of Employment. The time has come to have one Department responsible for education and training. That would be a positive lead at the highest level to demonstrate that there is no division between education and training and that they should be treated as of equal value. I welcome the recent appointment of a permanent secretary at the Department for Education whose background is mostly in the Department of Employment ; that may herald a drift towards bringing training into the remit and responsibilities of the Department for Education.
I wanted to make a short speech and I am sure that we shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Mr. Boswell : There are occasions when despite all the sound and fury there is an element of consensus in the House, and I have listened with interest to the debate. That is not to say that we agree on every point, but it has been possible to pick up certain strands of agreement.
To summarise, we heard characteristically trenchant and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). We also heard a characteristically magisterial intervention of the kind that we have become used to expecting from my hon Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). We had a new entrant, a former old lag of our Department, if I may put it that way, in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who also made a powerful intervention. They will forgive me if I do not speak at great length on their speeches and direct my remarks--though not confine them--to those made by the Opposition.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who moved the amendment that I shall invite my colleagues to resist, it occurred to me that he speaks with a measure of dogged reasonableness and is always anxious to include and please. One might say, in the motto of a well-known Sunday newspaper, that in his prescription all human life is there. Not only is he conscious of the heavy load already in the national curriculum ; he wants to add to it and, indeed, strip away from it in order to add to it. I cannot help feeling that in Committee and on Report he has functioned as the agony aunt of the Committee--what one might term at the least charitable, which I am not often, as "Banal of Bath".
6.15 pm
We listened to a long and characteristically passionate oration from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). For one awful moment I thought that, in view of the number of propositions he was setting up, I would have to encapsulate him as, "Aunt Sally from Stretford" because he was talking about "ghettoisation" and ideological agendas. He dragged in the entirely spurious suggestion that the controversy about key stage 3 testing was regarded as ideological on our side, which I emphatically deny. That did not add to his argument ; nevertheless, I listened to the substance of what he said.
Column 342
I turn to a point that was rehearsed across both sides of the House and fairly extensively in Committee. I noted the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the heavy load in the existing national curriculum and their inference that it might need to be lightened. The hon. Member for Stretford should acknowledge that we have already taken steps to introduce more flexibility at key stage 4 and to reduce some of the requirements to accommodate particular circumstances.We are debating the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its role, which we consider most important. If there are any doubts, the national curriculum is not set in stone. That is not immediately to be interpreted as suggesting that it is to be totally and radically changed every so often at whim, but the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will be charged with the duty of analysing it, reviewing the subject heads and seeing whether it can be improved. That will be a continuing process of rolling review which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome.
I now turn to an issue where there is particular difference between the hon. Member for Stretford and myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth struck back strongly on the attitude to A-levels. If it is necessary for people to come out, as it were, I was obliged to specialise at the age of 14 ; I regretted it at the time and continued to regret it, and to some extent have found ways of rowing back. That was not the normal structure of A-levels and people would not be driven to that course until the age of 16, but I regard it as over-narrow and we are addressing it within the national curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman was rather uncharitable about AS-levels. There were more than 50,000 entries for AS-levels last year. Indeed, one of them was one of my daughters, who received a very acceptable grade. One fifth of all A- level entrants take an AS-level as part of their entry. It is mistaken to set up an Aunt Sally suggesting that we are not interested in qualifications outside A-levels. It is important to have a standard to which others can be related. I do not accept that it devalues the system of vocational qualifications. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. "Devalued from what?" as though we had set a vocational standard and then succeeded in rubbishing it.
Mr. Walden : It seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy, not in my hon. Friend the Minister's position, but in that of others regarding A-levels. My view is that there is a wide intellectual consensus, which I share, on the need to broaden A-levels, perhaps on the French model. I am strongly against broadening A-levels at this juncture because I have no confidence in the ability of the education industry to do that without taking the opportunity of lowering expectations, yet again, across the board. I have no confidence in its ability to produce the high, broad expectations which exist in the baccalaure at in France.
Mr. Boswell : I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks carefully. I shall now explain to the House how we see ourselves being able to set up alternative measures and alternative routes.
Mr. Tony Lloyd : The intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is important because it encapsulates some of the attitudes shown in this debate.
Column 343
Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said? It is important for the Minister to place on record his agreement or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman's proposition.Mr. Boswell : I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer multiple or even dual-choice questions. However, I will give him an answer. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is that any change in A-levels, if not carefully considered and properly argued through, would not necessarily maintain standards. We have already opened up the possibility of acceptable, more narrowly focused studies through AS-levels. On the narrow point of the amendment, which deals with technical education in schools--
Mr. Foster : Vocational education.
Mr. Boswell : It was a slip of the tongue. The hon. Gentleman's intervention enables me to make the remark that I had intended to make. Despite his understandable enthusiasm for vocational education, the amendment does not mention the word "technology". I do not know whether technology is included in vocational education, as the hon. Gentleman sees it.
Mr. Don Foster : I am sure that the Minister is well aware that technology is currently included in the national curriculum.
Mr. Boswell : I am most certainly aware of that precise point. I do not see how, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to slim down the curriculum for the sake of vocational concerns and to safeguard the existing technology commitment, he would be able to deal with, for example, modern foreign languages. If the hon. Gentleman is simply saying that the national curriculum, as delivered up to key stage 4, should require a broad education which moves towards acceptable pathways to vocation and training in the future, and if that curriculum is to include science, technology, mathematics and other subjects which may be said to have a vocational handle--just as communications skills and English have a vocational handle- -I would not disagree much with him. However, we are not convinced of the need to prescribe vocational education as such as part of the national curriculum.
I repeat to the House that the Education Reform Act 1988 already requires that the curriculum of a school should prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. The hon. Member for Bath rightly and fairly referred to the technical and vocational education initiative and to our reform of the Business and Technician Education Council, a subject with which I shall deal later.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the curriculum is intended to cover the range of knowledge, skills and understanding commonly accepted as necessary for a broad and balanced curriculum for the individual pupil, as set out in the 10 foundation subjects. By the age of 14--there is no dissent on this point--it is entirely appropriate for young people to gain some experience of pre-vocational education. I do not want the House to confuse that with strictly vocational education. In most cases, one would anticipate that vocational education or the further stage of education would take place in the institutions for which I am responsible, after the compulsory school age
Column 344
and in some other provision. We do not need to confine the provision to being a strictly vocational education at that stage. As we move into the 14 to 16-year-old group and to key stage 4, we build on the sense of anticipation of the future--the motivation to move into the world of work. That is why we introduced the element of flexibility to which I referred. I shall come back to that point because it is a strong part of our concern and of my personal commitment.I shall now deal with the national curriculum because hon. Members have referred to the attainments of pupils in terms of basic skills and to the failure of too many to achieve them during the period of compulsory schooling. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that many people now in further education have to have remedial education. I am not satisfied with that and I am determined that we should improve on that position, although it is by no means an easy task and it requires a variety of approaches.
We need the national curriculum to start the process. As I said to the hon. Member for Bath, the national curriculum provides for science and technology from year one right through to year 11. That is not mirrored in the curriculum of any other European state of which I am aware. The big process, which we are now taking forward with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, has been a major success. Five years ago, it was barely an aspiration. Many people said that it could not be done or that it would not be successful. We are now teaching some science and technology to every child between the ages of five and nine, and to every child between 11 and 14 in maintained schools. We shall carry the process through to ensure that all pupils between 15 and 16 in those schools receive a balanced education relevant to future needs and set in a clear overall framework. We want to raise teachers' and parents' expectations for children.
I shall now deal with the question of what happens after compulsory schooling, which is an area of direct and day-to-day concern to me, and I shall deal with the issue of parity of esteem. With the greatest respect to the House, the parity of esteem that we do not seek is that to which we give lip service here. The real parity of esteem is that perceived by employers, by admissions tutors and by admissions officers in higher education. They are the people who are making judgments on the basis of what is offered to them. There are already encouraging signs of movement towards non-traditional entry routes and towards a more flexible approach, for example, to mature students. I give one example : already 20 per cent. of students entering higher education for engineering degrees have had non- traditional pathways into that education. There is growing interaction between higher national diplomas and people moving to degree qualifications.
As has been said, we are establishing a structure of vocational qualifications to parallel A-levels and to provide two alternative routes. The national vocational qualifications that are mainly talked about partake of specific vocational skills. There are also general NVQs, which are being piloted and developed. I have looked at the GNVQ curriculum for business studies and I have compared it with the typical A-level in business studies. It is an attractive alternative, although my decision is not what matters : what is important is what is taught and what is available to employers to consider. I remind the House
Column 345
that GNVQ at level 3 is to be equivalent to two A-levels, which is an important point of standard. It is not the qualification but the level at which it is taken which is critical.That approach is to be accompanied by a far more hands-on and direct effort to give proper career advice to those who are about to leave their compulsory school years as to whether they should stay within the schools sector or move elsewhere. There is no false antithesis here. Some of the biggest deliverers of A-levels, which are rubbished by some hon. Members including the hon. Member for Stretford, are the further education colleges, so they have an interest in the delivery of, and proper use for, the A-level system. Alongside that, we are offering for the first time--it is a breakthrough which will contribute to the objective that we all seek of building up the effective parity of the scheme--a coherent structure of vocational qualifications. It is a comprehensive structure, if I may use that phrase, in that it covers all the major curriculum areas. It is also a comprehensible area in the sense that young people wanting to move on towards the world of work and to get acceptable vocational qualifications, with a general educational element and some core skills that they can use in their future careers, will have something to go for. It is not a question of devaluing, removing or cheapening A-level or reducing standards, but--
It being half past Six o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 245, Noes 275.
Division No. 169] [6.30 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John
Barnes, Harry
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Bell, Stuart
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, Andrew F.
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Dr. Roger
Betts, Clive
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyce, Jimmy
Boyes, Roland
| Next Section
| Home Page |