---

Alan Howarth (Newport, East) (Lab): The whole House will be grateful to Mr. Tomlinson and his colleagues for their work. Does my right hon. Friend accept that a forlorn quest at 16 and 17 to achieve perhaps a D or an E at A-level never was part of any true gold standard? Does he not have some concern that a highly elaborate contrivance to certify within a single system basic numeracy and literacy, vocational skills and advanced conceptual ability may turn out to be fool's gold?

Mr. Clarke: I do not think that it is fool's gold, with very great respect to my right hon. Friend. The fact is that there are too many criticisms of the quality of the core skills of those entering employment and those going to university. Even if some of it is saloon bar comment, however, too much of it has some substance for me to be able to ignore it as I reflect on what changes should be made. That is why I believe that it is right to establish a proper core of skills that individuals should have as they leave school and either go to university or into employment. Is that fool's gold? I see no reason why it needs to be. There is no reason to assume that many more young people than now will not achieve the basic skills in literacy, numeracy and IT that are necessary to equip them for life. It is a reasonable ambition for a Government to seek to make that happen.

Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con): We will all need some time to digest what Mr. Tomlinson has said, but I wish to express two general hopes to the Secretary of State. The first is that if we are going to endure the disruption of replacing one exam system with another—or developing the exam system in the way that is envisaged—we should put in place something that will last a generation. That means that it must have the support of schools, teachers, parents, employers, universities and as wide a range of political opinion as possible. Secondly, I hope that we end up at A-level with a genuine objective assessment of people's suitability for university education. It is widely accepted that the current A-level does not do that, but it is equally
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 653
 
unacceptable that it should be adjusted in some subjective way to try to decide who is qualified for a university education. If the A-level that results from this process provides that genuine objective assessment, it will be a huge advance.

Mr. Clarke: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's first point. That is why I have approached the issue as I have done so far. I am also grateful to Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers who have participated in serious discussion with us on these questions. It would be extremely undesirable if we were to set off on some ideological bean feast, and I am well aware that consensus is important. I also agree that it is important to ensure that A-levels are fit for purpose in terms of determining university admission. It will require several reforms to A-levels, as Mike Tomlinson has set out, including the extended essay and the possible greater differentiation between awards at different levels. However, I cannot accept the proposal from the Leader of the Opposition that the quality of somebody's achievement at A-level is seen as irrelevant and that what is important is whether one comes in the top 5 per cent. of the cohort. The Leader of the Opposition is wrong, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must aim for standards and quality at A-level to ensure that universities can choose those who will most benefit.

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab): I very much welcome the Tomlinson report, but I wish to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one small element of it that causes a little concern, which is the greater use of mixed-age classes. That can be a great help because some have the opportunity to take exams early, but much international research suggests that if the age range is too wide it can cause personal and emotional development problems for the youngest and the oldest in the group. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that into consideration before the White Paper is produced in the new year.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but it is a question of horses for courses. It is, for example, possible to imagine learning a modern foreign language with people of a slightly wider range of ability working together, although one would not do that more generally across the curriculum for the emotional and developmental reasons that my hon. Friend mentions. I take his point seriously and will look into it carefully as we decide how to move from where we are now to the White Paper.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park) (LD): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I welcome the proposals that we think are in the Tomlinson report—I have not read it yet. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that my grandchildren, many of whom are just starting their school careers, will not be taught for the next 10 years by confused and muddled teachers who do not know what the new system involves?

 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 654
 
Mr. Clarke: That is a rather unfair attack on the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Confused and muddled is Liberal Democrat and teachers are teachers, and there we have both in Harrogate.

Mr. Willis: That is unfair.

Mr. Clarke: It is grossly unfair, indeed.

I accept that we need to increase the quality of teaching significantly. A central element of that is continuous professional development, and that is especially true in a climate in which we move to a greater parity between academic and vocational qualifications. I also accept that any process of reform, such as that set out by Mike Tomlinson today, must be slow, stable and mature, instead of being imposed by diktat at some given point. That is why I have been keen to operate on the basis of consensus and of clear signposts. I hope that the White Paper sets out the way in which we intend to do that to the hon. Lady's satisfaction.

Colin Burgon (Elmet) (Lab): As an ex-teacher, I can confirm the perception that our approach to vocational education has been woeful over the past 20 or 30 years. I welcome this golden opportunity to put things right. I notice that my right hon. Friend said—I welcome this as well—that there will be direct employer engagement in the development of vocational programmes, and we heard much about the CBI's role. However, when we talk about the world of work, there is another social partner—the TUC. What role does he envisage for it in vocational schemes?

Mr. Clarke: Full partnership. We have established the skills alliance to address such matters, including at the final stages of school and in college. Its two key members are the CBI and the TUC, along with other partners across government—so the TUC has a key role.

Let me emphasise that it is a mistake to identify employment purely with private sector employment. The major public sector employers also have a big role to play. There are some interesting developments, such as hospitals working with schools in their locality. Many people in school look for opportunities to work in, for example, health, and public sector employers can work well with schools. So, trade unions are involved, but so are public sector employers, not simply private sector employers.

Alistair Burt (North-East Bedfordshire) (Con): May I simply ask the Secretary of State that when he considers the implications of the report and the future implications for the curriculum, he has an external reference point beyond these islands, as well as looking at the historic problems that we have had? Anything in the 14 to 19-year-old curriculum that does not address the rapidly widening educational gap between ourselves, the United States and, in particular, the far east will not be doing its job. If he can give us the assurance that he will look at the implications in a world context, as well as in that of our own, we will all be much relieved.

Mr. Clarke: I can give that assurance. The key international comparative statistic that we have highlighted throughout the process is our very low
 
18 Oct 2004 : Column 655
 
performance in people staying on in education and training at 16 compared with many other countries. We do relatively well at the ages of 10 and 11 and at university, but we do poorly at staying on at 16 and 17, precisely because of our historic failure, under Governments of all parties, to address the vocational issue correctly, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) acknowledged. That is what the report is designed to address.

I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt)—we are living in an international marketplace for labour. We need therefore to ensure that our young people are educated to the highest international levels. I believe that our sector skills council approach has a good chance of achieving precisely what is needed to meet his aspirations.

---