---

Lord Tope: There is now widespread agreement on the importance of lifelong learning and the achievement of the national training and education targets for adults, as well as for young people, but there has been little discussion on the implications of the Bill for adult learners, further education or awarding bodies.

We believe that Clause 40 is also premature since Sir Ron Dearing is engaged in yet another review, this time of higher education. While the Bill exempts academic qualifications at degree level and higher levels, the move of the NCVQ into higher level NVQs is bound to lead to overlap with universities, especially in areas of applied study and professional qualifications. It is surely better to wait for Dearing to report before hastening to hand over these extensive powers to a new agency, particularly one whose original focus is rooted in schooling and not in post-school education and training.

For these reasons, we consider that Clause 40 should not stand part of the Bill, since all these matters require further discussion and clarification with the wide array of bodies involved, and particularly in the light of the awaited Dearing report.

Lord Henley: I find the noble Lord's behaviour quite extraordinary when it seems to be part of the policy of the party opposite to support these clauses of the Bill. No doubt the noble Lord wishes to have his amendment; possibly he wishes to have an ambush and strike the clause out.

We entirely accept the need to promote lifetime learning. That is one of the reasons why we have brought together SCAA and NCVQ. There is no reason why this clause should undermine modularity at A-levels, GNVQs or whatever in the way that the noble Lord suggested. As it is, I could not quite follow the drift of the noble Lord's argument as to whether or not he seemed to be in favour of modularity. But there it is.

Perhaps I may set out what the clause seeks to do. It sets out the authority's functions, which we have been through in some detail, in relation to external qualifications. As with the school curriculum assessment, the QCA will have full functions of review, advice, research and development and information-giving. New to this Bill is a power for the QCA to accredit qualifications against criteria which it has developed. That will give the new authority the statutory backing to build on the valuable work done by both staff and NCVQ to assure A-levels, GCSEs, NVQs and GNVQs. It will be a vital tool in implementing Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for a coherent and rigorous national framework of

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1629

qualifications. In that respect it is fully within the recommendations of Sir Ron's review in his report on 16-to-19 qualifications.

I fail to understand at this late hour just why noble Lords opposite wish to oppose the inclusion of this clause, having understood that in another place it had general support from both parties opposite. Perhaps at this time of night I am naive but I shall certainly recommend those on my side of the House, those on the Cross-Benches and even, dare I say it, those on the Benches opposite to support me in accepting that Clause 40 should stand part of the Bill.

11.2 p.m.

On Question, Whether Clause 40, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 14.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS
Addison, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Birdwood, L.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Burnham, L.
Butterfield, L.
Byford, B.
Caldecote, V.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Clanwilliam, E.
Colwyn, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Cumberlege, B.
Darcy (de Knayth), B.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Ferrers, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Gage, V.
Goschen, V.
Harlech, L.
Henley, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Howe, E.
Inglewood, L.
Lawrence, L.
Lindsay, E.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Marlesford, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Northbourne, L.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Rennell, L.
Ripon, Bp.
Rotherwick, L.
Rowallan, L.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strathcarron, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Trumpington, B.
Ullswater, V.
Vivian, L.
Warnock, B.
Wharton, B.
White, B.
Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L. [Teller.]
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
David, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]
Kilbracken, L.
Lockwood, B.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Redesdale, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tope, L.
Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 40, as amended, agreed to accordingly.

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1629

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1630

11.10 p.m.

Clause 41 [Other functions of the Authority]:

The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 166:

Page 35, line 1, leave out ("National").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 [Supplementary provisions relating to discharge by Authority of their functions]:

The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 167:

Page 35, line 16, leave out ("National").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 167A not moved.]

Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 167B:

Page 35, line 21, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 167C and 168A. The purpose of this amendment is to seek recognition of the need to include skill and knowledge as important considerations for the authority when seeking to meet the educational and training requirements of industry, commerce, finance and the professions--

Lord Henley: Would the noble Lord give way? Is he speaking to Amendment No. 167A or 167C?

Lord Tope: I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, did not move Amendment No. 167A. I am therefore moving No. 167B, which is simply to leave out "and", and I do not have a great deal to say on that. Therefore I am speaking to the next amendment in this group, which is Amendment No. 167C. I hope that now the Minister has recovered from his recent great victory he has managed to catch up with us.

The National Curriculum Authority, as it was called, is charged with a range of publicly funded qualifications. This function should include recognition and cognisance of the role and importance of the development of skills and specific knowledge in addition to the attainment of the required standards of practical competence. Much of the recent and current work on the development and possible revision of NBQS, for example, has been based around an acknowledgment of this need. Developments have included building to NBQ specifications and opportunities to develop key skills such as communication and working with others. New unit specifications now include information on those areas underpinning subject knowledge which it is essential for a candidate to understand. This ensures that competence is supported by a sound knowledge and rationale for the activity undertaken. I beg to move.

Lord Henley: I totally agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 167C. I apologise for having interrupted the noble Lord earlier, but I have now caught up with myself, as he put it. Although I agree with the

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1631

noble Lord's intention, I would argue that the amendment is totally unnecessary. Practical competence encompasses the necessary skill and knowledge that he asks for. People at work will simply not be able to demonstrate competence without skill and knowledge. The clause as it stands reflects the very strong views that were put forward forcefully and often by employers. They want trainees who can do things, and that is exactly what competence is about. They want training to be practical and they want competent employees. They do not want people with a head full of theory; they want people who can get the job done, and knowledge is an essential part of that. There is increased emphasis on that, in NVQs, as the noble Lord knows. With that, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I press him to be a little more explicit in particular on Amendment No. 167A, and on No. 167B as well? Part of the purpose of this group of amendments is to insert accessibility to qualifications as a factor which the QNCA should take into consideration when carrying out its functions.

The issues which these amendments address include how easily or realistically individuals may gain access to courses and qualifications which QNCA will oversee. Other amendments deal with the scope and level of the qualifications, but the amendments include a requirement that QNCA considers the accessibility of the courses that it supervises--in other words, it should take an active and informative view of the education provision presented under its aegis and should consider geography, the range and level of courses and the suitability of qualifications for the educational needs of individuals. It should be proactive--consulting, researching, advising and planning--rather than a passive filter for the bids of institutions. It should not only raise standards, but should fit what is available to the needs and aspirations of students.

All our experience of working with individuals throughout their lives and of encouraging people to stay in, and to return to, training is predicated on the notion of it being readily available. Sadly, some institutions have failed to understand that if people have to attend after work in order to complete their qualifications and training, they must take account of the geography of the locality and the availability of transport when planning their provision.

These are not minor but major issues if we are to address something about which I understood the Government to be concerned. I refer to the huge shortfall in the level of access to, and the quality and range of, opportunities for people at what is called "technician level". This is a very serious subject in a country which based its educational system for far too long on educating well a small minority--it still does--but which failed to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of the average. Unlike many of our competitor countries, we have succeeded in producing among people who are deemed to be average a feeling that that

3 Mar 1997 : Column 1632

will not do and that they are somehow incompetent. But they are the people whose hopes and aspirations we need to raise. They are the people we need to encourage. For them, geography, range and level of courses, and their suitability for individuals are particularly important. Could the Minister address those issues in his reply?

---