House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Nov 1993

Column 726

training schemes at a phenomenal rate. We in Britain must at least match those countries in skills and education if we are to hold and improve our position in an increasingly competive world.

I referred earlier to the enormous expansion that has taken place in advanced education. That expansion has been funded and fuelled principally by the taxpayer. I believe that we shall soon have to reconsider the way in which that funding continues, as there must be a limit to the amount of cash that we can extract from the British taxpayer for the support of our university students. It may be necessary to expand the interest-free loan more quickly than was originally envisaged, with a corresponding reduction in the value of the grant. In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made the point that the number of students was increasing, despite what people said when the interest-free student loan was introduced.

The national targets for education and training represent a substantial initiative in a particularly important area of our national life. Here I become, I freely admit, somewhat controversial. I may not have the entire and whole-hearted support of at least one of my hon. Friends currently sitting on the Front Bench.

I hold the view that education and training should be under one head and that the current division of responsibility between the Department for Education and the Department of Employment is no longer appropriate.

Miss Widdecombe : My hon. Friend wants to make me redundant.

Mr. Pawsey : There is no question of my hon. Friend being made redundant in any Administration who attach importance to a bright, lively, intelligent mind. I have not the slightest doubt that in the fullness of time my hon. Friend will move from Under-Secretary of State to Secretary of State. I look forward to addressing her in the House as my right hon. Friend. I hope that that puts her fears at rest.

Mrs. Ann Taylor : The hon. Gentleman might like to comment on the impending departure of the permanent secretary, who I understand is quite keen on the idea that the hon. Gentleman advocates. The hon. Gentleman has given assurances to the Minister about the rosy career ahead of her in government, saying that anyone bright and lively with an intelligent mind would make such progress--so how come he has not made such progress himself?

Mr. Pawsey : The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is no. The answer to the second part is that I am perhaps a rarity in the House--a contented Member of Parliament. Unlike the hon. Lady, I derive enormous satisfaction from what I do, and I believe that I can make a reasonably positive contribution. The hon. Lady clearly feels frustrated, and I understand why. After 14 years in the desert of opposition, with the prospect of a further 14 years in the desert before the promised land heaves into sight, of course she is frustrated. It is well-known that I like the hon. Lady, and I have the utmost respect for her. I only wish that her talents were more usefully employed--on the Government Benches--as I fear that on the Opposition Benches she is in for a long, long wait before she gets her hands on the seals of office. I regret it, but it is true. The two subjects should be brought together and one Department should be responsible for both. That

Column 727

Department should be the Department for Education. That would ensure a much better interface between school, college and business, a better interface between education and training, and an improved relationship that would bridge the gap which sometimes exists between what schools think employers want and what employers actually need. The targets represent a major step forward both in education and in training, and I look forward to their successful implementation. 12.5 pm

Mr. Don Foster (Bath) : I am sorry that the Secretary of State is unable to be with us for this part of the lengthy debate, but I understand that he has to attend to important legal matters. Were he here, I would have said to him that I think his speech today was rather less controversial than many of the other speeches that he has made in the House. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) pointed out, it is the second time in eight days that the Secretary of State for Education has made what, for him, was a relatively uncontroversial speech. That is to be welcomed.

I was saddened by the Secretary of State's remarks about Tower Hamlets. That is an issue about which we can have further debate outside the Chamber.

The only detailed criticism I would make of the Secretary of State is about the way that he began his speech. It was very unfair that, at 9.30 on a Friday morning, he should tease us about the possibility of his resignation.

A further point about the increasing emollience of the Secretary of State is the way that he recently agreed to the dropping of his "mums' army" proposals--although he did not do it personally, but arranged for one of his colleagues to do so.

Even though the Secretary of State is less controversial and more emollient, I know that he still upsets some people. I felt very sorry for the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lt great length the virtues of the measure that was to be dropped later in the day.

The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was also more emollient than he has been in the past, notwithstanding his strange comments about the hair of the hon. Member for Dewsbury.

One of the reasons for the lack of controversy so far is that, at long last, there is agreement among all political parties--and, I suspect, across the nation--about the vital importance of education and training to the future of this nation. The House is aware that 100 years ago--maybe even 50 years ago--the economic prosperity of the nation did not depend on a highly skilled, highly trained and highly educated work force. We all now acknowledge that it very definitely does.

We all acknowledge that investment in education and training not only benefits the individual but represents an investment in the future of this nation. I would go further and say that it is the crucial investment. I suspect, therefore, that today's debate is not so much about ends as about means to ends. One thing is clear : many of our current economic problems stem from a failure in the past to reach decisions based on the consensus which now exists.

Column 728

The Secretary of State said that he recognises the difficulty of using international comparisons. It is also dangerous, however, to make selective use of them. I agree with the Secretary of State that this country spends a greater percentage of its gross domestic product on education than Germany or Japan, but he failed to refer to the United States, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, all of which have spent more on education than the United Kingdom in recent years.

The recent report of the National Commission on Education referred to a number of interesting statistics comparing our economic performance with that of a number of our competitors. It also compared our poor education and training standards with those of our competitors. The connection between the two is stark.

If we are to compete more successfully in world markets, urgent but carefully planned action is necessary. Reference has already been made to the excellent and helpful brief that we all received from the CBI. It reported on our competitors' progress and said :

"We have to sprint rather than run to catch up with them." That phrase struck a chord with me.

Today, we are discussing the first annual report of the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets, and it has acknowledged that the progress made in achieving those targets must be quickened. The Secretary of State also acknowledged that when he said that there is no room for complacency.

The Secretary of State also rightly referred to a number of achievements-- for example, the greater participation in further and higher education that has been secured. Sadly, there is always a downside to any such comment. Although the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench may praise themselves for that increased expansion in student numbers, will they also take time to investigate and try to find a solution to the problem of the growing number of people who drop out of further and higher education? It is worth reflecting that the drop-out rate in higher education is now higher than it has ever been, at one in eight students. There is also significant concern about the increasing drop-out rate of students from further education colleges.

The other downside is the way in which much of the expansion of higher and further education has been inadequately funded. It is expansion on the cheap. All too often, we now hear about problems of overcrowding in lecture theatres, inadequate stocks of equipment and of books in libraries to cater for students in colleges and universities.

The Secretary of State has proudly boasted that, after a short time, an additional 100,000 students are now in further and higher education. He went on to say that that number was equivalent to founding a dozen new universities. Is there any evidence, however, that the necessary capital expenditure required for a dozen new universities has been made available for those extra students? It has not.

There is growing concern about the increased backlog of repair and maintenance at existing higher and further education institutions. When the Under-Secretary of State for Employment winds up, perhaps she will confirm my estimate that the backlog at higher education institutions alone stands in the region of £1 billion. While there has been welcome progress, the downside must be addressed if the targets are to be achieved.

Column 729

I welcome the Secretary of State's comment that his key aim is expansion with high quality. The targets that we are debating are, in the words of the advisory council's chairman, not world- class standard but the minimum required to be competitive. Much reference has been made to the foundation learning target 1. While we are struggling to meet that target of 80 per cent. at NVQ level 2 by 1997, it has already been surpassed in some of our competitor countries--most notably, in Germany.

What has been done and what could be done? Reference was made also to the importance of business-education partnerships. I welcome their development in all sorts of guises, which has played a crucial role in developing the vocational work that is increasingly being seen in schools. I place on record my party's thanks to the many businesses that have increasingly become involved.

The problem is that, sometimes, things are taken too far. It is occasionally assumed that the education service can be turned into a business. There is a crucial difference between the key functions of business and those of a service. I was disturbed by the intervention of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), when he said that further education colleges, having been freed from local education authorities, could run as businesses. I do not accept that FE colleges should treat themselves as businesses. They should certainly be efficient and economic and provide value for money, but they ought not to operate on the same fundamental principles that underpin businesses.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr. Robin Squire) : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, has visited further education colleges since they gained their independence, and has spoken to principals and others involved in them. Does he acknowledge that they welcome the greater flexibility that independence has provided, and that a number of their areas of operation can be very businesslike?

Mr. Foster : The Minister's question gives me an opportunity to say that certain aspects of an FE college's day-to-day operation, as of a school or any other educational institution, can benefit considerably from learning from the world of business and commerce in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. However, taking that to the extreme and treating the institution and its activities as a business means choosing between courses that will generate money and those that may not generate so much money but are more desperately needed in the local community.

Mr. Tony Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. From his discussions with people working in further education, can he confirm that one of their major concerns is that the Further Education Funding Council is playing a critical role in planning, but it has not yet become very refined ? Many colleges feel that it prevents them from operating in the educational interests of their students, because the funding formulas used dictate that colleges move in a direction that may be against the direct interests of their students.

Mr. Foster : The hon. Gentleman is correct. I shall give an example : current funding arrangements make it increasingly difficult for further education colleges to run

Column 730

courses for part-time students. We want to increase the number of part-time students and widen the access for various different groups in society.

Mr. Tony Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, which I hope that the Education Ministers present will take on board. Part- time students are not funded in a way that benefits colleges, as full-time students are. A significant number of colleges want to expand part-time provision, but find that they are financially penalised if they do so, which is unfair.

Mr. Foster : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has expanded an issue that I intended to develop later. If the Minister wants to intervene to tell us that his Department plans to consider that issue, I am sure that the House will be grateful to him.

Mr. Robin Squire : There is a lot of prop and copping going on here.

There is at least one other Minister with direct further education responsibility. In my experience, far from the implications inherent in the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), there has been significant growth, even since April, in interest in both full-time and part-time courses, notwithstanding the different financing structures for those courses. On my visits to and contacts with further education institutions, I have not encountered the disadvantages for part-time students implied by earlier comments.

Mr. Foster : I am grateful to the Minister, but I hope that he will take my word for it--on my visits I have encountered such problems. It appears that other hon. Members share my experience.

I was referring to the importance of education-business partnerships. I have acknowledged that they are important and can be helpful in a number of sectors, provided that they are not to be taken to the extreme lengths that I have described. One such partnership led to the original proposal by the Confederation of British Industry for the targets.

I accept that the targets can, as part of an effective framework for improvement, provide a useful tool, particularly if they are not used in the way that it was being suggested that the Department wanted to use them. We have seen some school examination results and information about truancy used to form the basis of crude league tables. The targets must be part of a co-ordinated package aimed at improving standards.

The Secretary of State said that he hoped that the targets were common ground between the political parties. I must disappoint him by saying that there is growing concern that the targets being debated today are, in some respects, arbitrary and unrealistic, and deal only with the short term. That view can be illustrated in a number of ways.

The first lifetime learning target states that, by 1996, all employees should participate in training or development activities. Yesterday, I talked to CENTEC, one of the London training and enterprise councils. It was made clear to me that 27 per cent. of London businesses have no staff training, and, as far as CENTEC can see, there is no prospect of their doing so. The target is not always realistic.

The second lifetime learning target states that, by 1996, 50 per cent. of the work force should be aiming towards

Column 731

NVQs or units towards them. My training and enterprise council in Avon states that its figure is between 2 and 3 per cent.--nowhere near the 50 per cent. target.

A further 7 or 8 per cent. are doing other vocational qualifications which, in turn, will be taken on to the NVQ system. But the combined figure will still be only about 10 per cent. So there is evidence that some of the targets are unrealistic. The Secretary of State admitted as much today, and said that it was important to develop the targets. He clearly shared my view when he spoke of the need to ensure the continued relevance and challenging nature of the targets. He also admitted that one change had already been made in respect of the four-or-five-GCSEs problem. So there is general agreement that the targets need modification and development to ensure that the challenge extends into the longer term. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was challenged by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) because she made no specific proposals. It is for her to defend herself, but I should like to make six proposals for a way forward that might help to develop our standards in training and education.

First, we must have a much more co-ordinated framework for education and training. I am glad that the Government are already committed to the rapid completion of the national framework for vocational standards and qualifications. They rightly add to that the need to ensure that those qualifications are more widely recognised and used. But that in itself is not enough to develop the framework that I want.

It was a Conservative Government in 1962 who said in one of their White Papers :

"a serious weakness in our present arrangements is that the amount and quality of industrial training are left to unco-ordinated decisions of a large number of individual firms."

Thirty years later, one year ago almost to the very day, the then Secretary of State for Employment admitted in an article in The Times that the training system in this country is a muddle. She also referred to the "alphabet soup" of acronyms for the Department's many initiatives, which, she added, are largely unknown.

Even more recently, the Institute of Manpower Studies criticised the training targets because they do not form part of a coherent national strategy. I suggest that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth hit the nail on the head when he advocated one approach to this problem.

Liberal Democrats have long argued, and the National Commission on Education argued only three weeks ago, that, as the hon. Gentleman proposed, there should be an integration of training with education. Liberal Democrats and the commission would argue that that be done by establishing a Department for education and training.

I hope for a positive ministerial response to that idea, although I am slightly wary of it, because it may give more powers to the current Secretary of State for Education, and that worries some of us. I do not suppose that it worries the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) much, however, because she knows that, in the right hon. Gentleman, she is assured of a good retraining programme. I should particularly like the Minister to respond to my second proposal, which is that we devote more energy and attention to small businesses, which are the engine room of recovery. They will provide the future prosperity of this country, and their importance cannot be overstated. I hope

Column 732

today to hear that many of the measures we have been discussing will increasingly be targeted on small businesses and on ways of helping them.

I think that the Minister would agree that far more needs to be done to target, for instance, the "investors in people" programme on small businesses.

Thirdly, we must go still further in establishing parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications.

Miss Widdecombe : Hear, hear.

Mr. Foster : The hon. Lady says, "Hear, hear." Conservative Members have been saying that for the past three months on this issue. Some have suggested that the establishment of NVQs and GNVQs has solved the problem. It has not. There is no parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications, and there will not be such parity while the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and others continue to talk up the so -called "gold standard" of the A-level. Our schools should have a co- ordinated curriculum for 14 to 19-year-olds.

Miss Widdecombe : It is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's eloquent argument that we have tried to talk up vocational A-levels. Instead of saying that we should have gold standard A-levels or training, we are mixing vocational training and A-levels, and thereby share the hon. Gentleman's aim.

Mr. Foster : There is a gradual coming together in the House on the issue, but the current arrangements do not achieve what the hon. Lady suggests. A pupil may speak about following a mixture of academic and vocational studies, but we need to find ways in which that can be done. Sadly, there have been far too many fine words in the debate. There have been some developments, but we must move forward. My fourth suggestion relates to the voluntary nature of much that is taking place. There is growing concern that the voluntary requirements on firms are not leading them to do very much. I welcome the targets that have been set, but what incentives are being offered to push individuals and companies towards them? We should require that every 16, 17 and 18-year-old in employment should be guaranteed a minimum of one day a week off-the-job training. We shall, of course, have to consider ways to fund that and other matters. Perhaps the time has come to reconsider a training levy scheme different from those in the past.

My fifth suggestion relates to more general funding. I acknowledge that, to be successful, funding must come not only from Government but from individuals and companies. There is complete agreement on that.

Let us look at the Government side of the arrangements. Direct public spending on off-the-job vocational training has been cut in real terms over the past five years. That is disturbing. It is disgraceful that Government expenditure on training fell dramatically at the height of the current recession. According to Government figures, there was a fall of 15 per cent. in cash terms and 26 per cent. in real terms between 1989-90 and 1991 -92.

I have recently spoken to many people in TECs and have discovered that they find funding, especially for youth training, difficult. People in my TEC told me that funding for youth training is "extremely near the knuckle." The squeeze on local government has also created difficulties.

Column 733

One example, although I could cite many, relates to the discretionary awards that are so desperately needed to ensure expansion across the community.

I am delighted that the National Commission on Education recognised the need for increased expenditure on education and training. As hon. Members are aware, my party is committed to such expenditure. We have said that, if necessary, we are prepared to raise income tax by 1p to pay for that vital increase in expenditure.

Sixthly, one of the most crucial actions we could take is to ensure that everyone in this country has the best and earliest possible start. Like the hon. Member for Dewsbury, I urge Ministers and all Conservative Members to think again about the crucial importance of nursery education.

When the Secretary of State heard what the National Commission on Education report recommended, he pushed it to one side, saying, "We simply do not have the money." Sadly, he still sees money spent on education as a cost. In fact, money spent on education is an investment in the future of the nation--and money spent on and invested in nursery education is, without doubt, the best form of investment in our future.

Progress is being made, although I regret that it is often fragmented. Nevertheless, it is welcome. I hope that I have made some positive suggestions for the way forward. There is no doubt that urgent action is needed ; otherwise, in the words of the advisory council whose report we are considering, we shall be left with a work force that is under-educated and under-trained.

12.36 pm

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) : I express the warmest admiration for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government in achieving the dramatic expansion in the numbers in higher education which my right hon. Friend announced today. It is a brilliant achievement that there are now 1 million students in higher education, with no fewer than 100,000 having been added this year. The universities have made the most enormous effort to accommodate that expansion and they are to be warmly congratulated.

The expansion has not come without a great battle by the Government. I always opposed the binary line, which was first introduced by a Labour Government and has never been repudiated by the Labour party. I debated the matter with Anthony Crosland, no less, and I could never understand how anyone with his views and the views that we hear so often from the Labour party could successively support the separation of private higher education from public higher education, with its two-tier effect, and the lack of parity of esteem for people who are often of equal achievement in higher education. It is very much to the Government's credit--and to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, among others--that the binary line was abolished and that there is proper parity of esteem between those who achieve university degrees and those who achieve other higher education qualifications.

I have a real concern about discretionary awards. Most, if not almost all, of them go to students undertaking vocational courses, which are very germane to the matter before us today. Some local authorities have decided to give no discretionary awards. I ask my hon. Friend the

Column 734

Under-Secretary, who has wide sympathy in this area, to investigate the matter. Some excellent institutions are on the verge of collapse because they cannot attract students as those students cannot obtain the discretionary awards needed to follow courses that would unquestionably lead to valuable qualifications and to work both in this country and abroad.

I have bolstered many students in my own constituency by seeking to obtain money from charitable institutions and so on, but there is a limit to what one can do in that respect. So, at the same time as saying how marvellous it is that in this very year no fewer than 100, 000 additional students will receive mandatory awards, with all the high value of that and the eternal value to those people and to our nation and to the prospects of work for all concerned, it is a real worry that no doubt several thousand other students will not get into a form of advanced or higher education because a discretionary award will not be available to them. Something must be done.

In the middle of September, I called together all the schools in my constituency--every primary school and every secondary school, including independent schools and independent primary schools--and invited my old friend Sir Ron Dearing to come and discuss the work that he was undertaking. It was a conference of the highest value. I invited to that conference, because I thought that it was the right thing to do, the heads of schools, chairmen of governors, an elected parent and an elected assistant teacher, and I invited a student to come as an observer but to be free to speak. It was an extremely well-attended conference.

Lady Olga Maitland : What a good idea.

Mr. Greenway : I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their support for that idea. It was a valuable and long afternoon.

We debated with Sir Ron Dearing what we were seeking to do about the curriculum and about idealism in education. I am one of those people who used to applaud the noble Lord Hailsham and others before him, and the great figures in the history of education such as Thomas Arnold, when I read that they said or heard them say that education is a pure science in itself. I want people to be educated for its own sake. That means that they do not have to be applied to any particular discipline to achieve the roundness and full education that everyone ought to achieve. I thought that through many times, and we thought it through at my conference.

I have come to the conclusion, and my conference came to the conclusion, that there is no reason why that type of idealism should not be combined into an education which also takes children and young adults, and not-so- young adults if they are in higher education, through disciplines that are relevant to career opportunities. The educational establishment and its leaders have called for idealism in education because idealism brings out the best in people. We led into discussions about the national curriculum, which was warmly welcomed and supported by the conference, as was the national syllabus, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). There is no reason why the subjects in which children are educated should not lead them forward, ideally and practically, into further and higher education courses and then into jobs of value to our nation.

Column 735

I had the fortune to serve on the Select Committee on Education and Science for three Parliaments until I was removed by an odd device last year. Since then, I have had the honour to serve on the Select Committee on Education and so I have had the unique opportunity of a combined view of the various matters before the House. I visited the Pacific rim countries of Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan with that Select Committee. During the visit I investigated education there and tried to find out what links were made with training and how their people and economies benefited.

First, one must ensure that one has a policy for literacy. Japan claims to be 99.9 per cent. literate. I think that the accuracy of that statement would probably depend on one's definition of "literate". In this country, we define 90 per cent. of our population as literate.

An ability to understand form filling is fundamental. One needs to be able to fill in forms to get a job and to live within society--for example, when dealing with income tax and other demands on the individual. Also, at the lowest level, people need to be able to read and write to comprehend the basic numeracy problems that may be put before any adult in work. It is not enough--as some firms have claimed--to say that a machine operator does not need to be literate because he is pulling a handle and if he pulls it too hard a red light is set off which warns him that he is applying a dangerous level of force. Operators must be able to read the manual for a machine and few of our workers at the lowest, or even the highest, levels can operate machinery--including computers--without being able to read the manual that goes with them.

The same applies in the home. If one purchases a Hoover, one often has to assemble it according to a picture and some basic instructions. A person who cannot follow the instructions cannot live normally in the home.

I have made those basic points because I think that countries such as Japan have realised that that is what fundamental education is about and what literacy is. If one can put one's least intelligent children through an education which achieves that result, one will do them and the nation a service.

I welcome the diversity of schools, educational institutions and qualifications that the Government have been able to establish. They have had to fight hard against uniformity in education and the pressure, from both the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties, for a single form of secondary education, for example, has been enormous. The Government have been right to resist the pressure to have comprehensive schools alone, and mixed comprehensives at that. Those parties would also have stopped independent schools--and I think that that is still their aim--from achieving that goal, which would result in uniformity in the system and would make the children of this nation lack individuality. The only way that one can cater for the individuality of every child is to have various kinds of schools such as single sex schools, mixed schools, church schools, comprehensive schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges and now grant-maintained schools, the principle of which has been so well established by the Government. Surely the principle must now extend to the right of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and others to have their own schools.

Mr. Don Foster : I shall put a quick question and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be equally brief in his response. Does he agree that the vast majority of children

Column 736

in Britain have no choice whatever about which school they attend, which is why it is crucial to ensure that all schools are capable of providing excellence for all ?

Mr. Greenway : It is a frightfully false and dangerous argument to say that because some children have no choice--presumably the hon. Gentleman means geographically--choice should be taken from everybody. That monstrous and false argument has been peddled by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party for too long. It is intellectual and practical rubbish and worng.

Three requirements must be met to achieve a good education for all children --including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who is about to leave--and adults, too. Schools must ensure good attendance, hard work and good behaviour. I could talk about those requirements for many hours.

Mr. Pawsey : Go on. We would like to hear it.

Mr. Greenway : Those were my priorities for 23 years in the teaching profession. Children cannot achieve anything if they are not at school, so there must be pressure on attendance and action taken against truancy. While children are at school, it is up to the staff to ensure that they work hard and relevantly. Under the Government's relevant and valuable curriculum, hard work may be inspired. Thirdly, good behaviour is essential. If a child is not behaving, not working and not attending, there will be no achievement.

12.51 pm

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : First I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate on national education and training targets. If it does not appear condescending, may I say that I have been struck by the quality and thoughtfulness of the speeches from both sides of the House. There seems to be an emerging consensus of opinion on the importance of the targets as a means of upgrading the skills and aspirations of people in the country. I cannot think of a more important subject for the House to discuss because on it will depend our country's economic and social future, through which we can fulfil the potential of the people. After all, that is what Parliament and democracy are all about. always seem to be put in an economic context. That is perhaps understandable, as they were suggested by the CBI as a result of its consultation paper, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) referred. In one sense, the economic target is important. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) was right to say that, although enormous progress has and is being made on those targets, an enormous amount of work is still to be done. That is why the targets were set up by the CBI. In its document--produced by the national manufacturing council of the CBI--called "Making It In Britain", it identified the productivity gap between Britain and our competitor nations as between 20 and 40 per cent. The CBI said that we must make up that gap within a period of 10 years. To do that, over the next 10 years we shall have to have consistent improvement in productivity of the kind that we have seen over the past two or three years, despite the

Column 737

recession. We would be blind beyond belief not to realise that it is a question of sprinting, not running, to catch up. There is every evidence that we are doing that.

We have spoken of investment. The OECD has said that, in terms of both hard investment in manufacturing and soft investment in innovation and training, our investment figures have held up well throughout the recession, in comparison with our competitors. The important point is that how well that investment produces an increase in productivity depends on the skills base of the people using the equipment. It is all about growing people, about people being made more aware of their own potential and, as a result, improving their performance.

Professor Charles Handy told us some time ago, very percipiently, that where 20 years ago two thirds of jobs were unskilled, by now the proportion would be reversed and two thirds would require a significant amount of skill to be performed properly. That has been reflected in the fact that it is estimated that in the course of one's career one is likely to change jobs or professions at least twice and perhaps even three times. Those perceptions have been made evident in the document "The Case for Targets" issued to all of us by the National Advisory Council for Targets in Education and Training. It spoke about the highest qualification of school leavers and compared this country with France and Germany. Although there has been an enormous amount of catching up, there is still a significant gap.

Even more significant for our economic performance, in its "Making it in Britain" document the CBI points out that although we have on occasions reached levels of productivity growth and output growth that match and sometimes exceed some of those in the rest of the world, we have not been consistent enough in doing so. We have not consistently, every year, made a percentage increase in productivity and output. That has as much to do with how we use our investment, and therefore the skills base of the people using it, as with investment itself. In a recent publication in Education , it was interesting to see the chief education officer of Darlington writing about the enterprise skills that he is trying to encourage in the north- east.

That is the economic side, but nobody should suggest that the targets are purely economic and about improving human capital, to use that rather ugly phrase. They are about stretching people, about giving them investment, through qualification, in the community and thus making them more contented and, one hopes, more law-abiding citizens. There is no doubt that the most persistent offenders in our society are those who feel most alienated from it. One is more likely to feel alienated if one has no investment in terms of educational qualification and one therefore does not feel that one can reach the levels to which one aspires.

To put all that in context, we have heard that there have been enormous achievements over the past few years. Staying-on rates in schools have risen from 46 per cent. in 1985 to 71 per cent. this year. We have heard about the massive increase in numbers going on to higher education and the numbers doing the general national vocational qualification certificate-- 80,000 youngsters this year. As I said in an intervention, in my local college in Kidderminster no fewer than half the full-time students are doing GNVQs.

Column 738

We have heard about yet another initiative-- investors in people. Some 4,000 firms are now engaged in that, and it will have some effect on improving the statistic that although three quarters of the work force have some form of qualification, those qualifications are perhaps not of the kind or the rigour that we should like them to be. The Government have put an enormous amount of resources into technical education, both through the national curriculum and through the technical and vocational education initiative, on which I will say more later. The Government have spent £900 million in the past 10 years, with the intention not only of broadening the curriculum but, more important, of improving the links between schools and businesses in local communities. That is significant for improving the skills base and for reaching targets, particularly the foundation targets. At present, 90 per cent. of secondary schools have some permanent link with local businesses.

We are making progress on the targets themselves. Those figures are outlined in the document from the National Advisory Council on Education and Training Targets, and I will not repeat them. There are two areas about which we must talk on national targets--the first is foundation learning and the second is lifetime learning. I was glad that the Secretary of State said that we have redefined what is meant by NVQ level 2. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made the point as to whether the level should mean four or five A to C GCSE passes, and consistency is important.

There is a problem in terms of the national consciousness as to what we mean by NVQ level 2. As the numbers who achieve that level increase, it is particularly important that we convince the public that it is a rigorous assessment. The hon. Members for Bath and for Dewsbury have both said that the GCSE has been a tremendous boon for commitment and achievement in our schools.

Nevertheless, the Ofsted report suggested that there was limited confidence in GCSE results and that eyebrows had been raised by the fact that the number of people getting five A to C passes had increased by 6 per cent. when in the previous two years the number had not changed by a great deal.

Reference was made by the hon. Lady to the recent Ofsted reports on GNVQs and their variable standards. The type of problems that were looked at included the level of teaching time, low entry qualifications, and assessment processes which were hard to understand. Those subjects ought to be addressed if we are to maintain the credibility of the targets.

The fact that the targets are to be achieved on foundation learning initially by 16-year-olds means that one must address the kind of curriculum that people from level 3 of the national curriculum will face from the age of 14 upwards. We have been bedevilled by a plethora of validating bodies through the GCSE. We did have 12, and there are now six. We have also been bedevilled, as has been said before, by the 4,000 qualifications that the National Council for Vocational Qualifications is now trying to rationalise. It is important to remember that, although we must rationalise, we must hold on to that which is good.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) that it would be lunacy to throw away A-levels, which are used as a benchmark of excellence by employers, just because we wish to make the progress in education of people from the ages of 14 to 18

Next Section

Home Page