---

Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD): I, too, thank the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the courtesy of an advance copy, and also for fully briefing myself and the Liberal Democrats on today's proposals from Mike Tomlinson. The Secretary of State's efforts to maintain a broad consensus over the key proposals is appreciated by my party, and we say that it is absolutely critical to their success. It is, however, a great pity that some have sought to undermine the review for narrow party political gain, without even considering the proposals in detail. I should also like to offer our appreciation to Mike Tomlinson and the 14 to 19 working group for undertaking what has been a Herculean task. They deserve the praise of the whole House.

As a party, we Liberal Democrats offer broad support for the review's overall direction and welcome the concept of the new diploma. We also welcome the time span involved in implementing various aspects of it and hope that it will be possible to introduce many of those aspects within that time scale, where appropriate.

I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State made it clear that he will have no truck with a return to norm referencing for any stage of the diploma. To deny young people recognition of their achievements on the basis of a mathematical quota would be unacceptable to my party, and I am delighted that it is unacceptable to him. But will he also make it clear—he did not do so in his answer to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—that he rejects a single-subject qualification structure within the diploma? We strongly support the principle, laid out by Mike Tomlinson today, of retaining much of the content of GCSEs and A-levels, but we agree that the qualifications themselves, as single subjects, must go. The diploma cannot simply be a wrapper for existing qualifications, and if the
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 650
 
Secretary of State believes that Mike Tomlinson is saying that it can, perhaps he will say so at the Dispatch Box.

I am sure that the Secretary of State has noted the comments of the CBI and of the British Chambers of Commerce. We are delighted that there will be differentiation within the diploma at all levels, but will he confirm that unless a student gets the necessary grades in ICT, numeracy and literacy, they will not be awarded the diploma at the level in question? Will he also explain in what way he expects British business to be involved in and influence the vocational curriculum, because the record of such involvement is certainly not a good one to date?

Liberal Democrats support the use of internal assessment throughout the 14 to 19 phase and a move away from age-related examinations, but will the Secretary of State explain how it is possible to move away from such examinations while retaining league tables at 16, as he seemed to suggest earlier? The two ideas seem to contradict each other. We also support the concept of chartered examiners and accredited centres to guarantee quality. We find it remarkable that a first-year postgraduate is allowed to mark the work of an undergraduate, leading to the award of a degree, yet a teacher with 20 years' experience cannot mark the work of a 15-year-old.

The aspect of the Tomlinson reforms that pleases us most is that they begin to meet the needs of an army of young people who have so far been left out of a curriculum and qualifications structure that is largely irrelevant. How does the Secretary of State reconcile his own five-year plan, which encourages institutional autonomy, with a 14 to 19 review that seeks institutional collaboration? How does he propose to offer all young people independent quality guidance in the making of informed choices? How are young people going to access transport to enable them to move between institutions and the workplace? Crucially, how will the diploma stimulate learning post-16 for young people who are not in full-time education or training?

There are many vital issues that need clarification, and hopefully, when the Secretary of State introduces the White Paper it will deal not just with the Tomlinson reforms but with the entire 14 to 19 phase, including those vital issues. Today's report gives us a blueprint for the future, but we hope that it will prove to be more than just an interesting wrapper. We hope that, in 10 years' time, it will provide the four-year-olds of today with a completely new curriculum and choice.

Mr. Clarke: I echo what I said to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), in that I appreciate the constructive approach taken by the Liberal Democrats and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) in particular. I shall respond to five of the points that were made. I do not believe that a diploma can, under any circumstances, be simply a wrapper for individual qualifications. The whole point of the proposed diploma as it evolves in five or 10 years' time—or whenever it may be—is that it should provide a way of interrelating the various qualifications arising at various points. That means that we still have the key A-level subjects or whatever at the top, but there is a relationship between the subjects, which I believe is the right way to proceed. It is certainly not simply a wrapper.
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 651
 

On the core, the hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. He is right that Mike Tomlinson is suggesting that at each stage there should be a certain core of basic skills that everyone should have—and it will be tested. Incidentally, as Mike Tomlinson pointed out today, that is a sharper requirement than the current one for five A* to C GCSEs, because it requires English and maths to be part of that approach overall. It is a significant development—a toughness, in a way—to move forward on that basis.

I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's points about employers and would remark simply that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, David Bell, particularly emphasised today the key role for employers in designing the curriculum. We believe that, through the sector skills councils and other work that we are carrying out, we are laying the proper basis for that to happen. That is why I very much hope that the CBI will adopt a positive approach towards it.

On the question of rigour, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The key issue is how it is established at each stage of the examination regime—

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): Rigor mortis.

Mr. Clarke: It is interesting to hear the Conservatives talking about rigor mortis, as it largely characterises their party.

On collaboration for the 14 to 19 phase, I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman, and we believe that the process that we already have in train will allow it to happen.

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement to the House this afternoon. With respect to what is proposed for 14 to 19-year-olds and vocational training, may I tell him that we cannot get the places quickly enough? If he wants to make progress in advance of the 10 years that he anticipates, north Staffordshire would be happy to be involved in a pilot scheme between the college of further education and the schools.

On my right hon. Friend's statement and the taking of further advice from the Select Committee on Education and Skills, given that one of the really serious issues that we face today is climate change, I ask him to take seriously the issues in education for sustainable development and to use the Tomlinson report to integrate that subject into the new curriculum that we will be establishing.

Mr. Clarke: First, I enthusiastically accept my hon. Friend's offer to have Stoke help with the piloting work. Secondly, we published a year ago our action plan for sustainable development, which included particular aspects of curricular organisation, and I agree with my hon. Friend that this report provides important opportunities.

Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the principal factors that has called the rigour of the current
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 652
 
exam system into question is the increasing prevalence of course work in it? I welcome the Tomlinson commitment to reduce it. However, does he also accept that over the next 10 years many millions of young people will be taking exams as they are at the moment? What proposals does he have to bring forward the reduction in the amount of course work, so that those pupils can be brought into the new exam system before the Tomlinson report is fully implemented?

Mr. Clarke: I said in my earlier response that the White Paper will include a timetable for implementing the various changes. We will work in close consultation with the examination boards and others, precisely to address the points of rigour that the hon. Gentleman makes about the relative merits of course work vis-à-vis examinations and similar issues. One mistake that I do not intend to make is to introduce a set of changes in a relatively instantaneous way without consulting fully the relevant interests. I want to ensure that they are properly locked in, which is the principle that I shall apply to course work as to other issues.

---