HL Deb 18 November 1991 vol 532 cc797-812

9.3 p.m.

Baroness Seear rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the educational and resource implications of their scheme for general national vocational qualifications to be piloted in September 1992.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I must first declare an interest; I am the chairperson of the lead body for the administration of NVQs. It is as a result of information and publications which have reached me in that capacity that I have tabled this Unstarred Question.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of NVQs. The courses enable people to gain qualifications on the basis of their established and proven competence regardless of how that competence has been acquired. I and all members of the committee on which I serve regard that as a most important development in training in this country. It opens up new opportunities to many people. I do not speak for the committee tonight but to some extent reflect its views. A great deal of tedious work is involved and members would not serve on the committee unless they believed that the development of NVQs was of the greatest importance.

We are entirely in favour of everything that can be done to encourage 16 to 18 year-olds to stay in education, which is not the case at present. In this country there is an appalling difference between the number who leave at the earliest possible moment and those who stay on. That intention is approved and agreed.

The committee is also in favour of finding a route to universities other than the established A-level route. There should be an equivalent to A-level qualifications which opens up a university education to people who do not respond to such studies but who would respond to an opportunity to study other subjects to a level which is acceptable as entrance to universities. They would have to show that they possess the qualities, ability to learn and range of knowledge necessary if they are to make good use of university courses, whether they are the old-established university courses or the new courses which will be set up with the expansion of higher education, which we welcome. Up to that point I am entirely in agreement with what the Government are trying to do.

The idea has been developing for some time. A few months ago the general national vocational qualifications scheme was put forward. It is not linked to a particular subject but it is a general national vocational qualification to be made available to 16 to 18 year-olds—though not exclusively to them—which they can take in schools, sixth-form colleges and colleges of further education. The courses should provide them with the qualifications necessary to enter universities. That is the alternative channel for people wanting to go to university. It is expected that it will also provide a useful stepping stone for those who are not going on to university but are going into employment. By gaining additional experience and/or taking additional courses they will complete the national vocational qualification for which the general programme, it is thought, is a valuable introduction.

A great difficulty about that, and one of the great weaknesses, is that I very much doubt whether those two things can be done satisfactorily if one is trying to develop an alternative to the A-level examination. That must be the primary task of the scheme. It may or may not —and in my view it will not—be possible to combine that with the sort of programme needed for those people who are not going into higher education but who will then go into employment and will gain qualifications in the same way that other people gain qualifications through the NVQ system.

If one says that the primary task of the new scheme is to provide that much-needed alternative course or path into higher education, it is most important to see what is required, what will be taught, how the students will be prepared and what will be the value of the courses undertaken.

The paper sent to me about general NVQs stated that the programme would be based on an understanding of principles. That sounded quite hopeful. However, I then received a draft specification for consultation for general NVQs for business. I understand that in schools—and one can appreciate that—the business-oriented courses are extremely popular. Many pupils staying on are interested in going in that direction. Therefore, if this became an accepted course a considerable number of young people staying on after the compulsory school leaving age would take the courses laid down in that programme.

It is there that one is extremely surprised and, indeed, alarmed to find what is being suggested. Primarily we are talking about 16 to 18 year-olds. In the draft specification there is a unit called "Business Economics". In that students are asked to identify and assess organisational structures and cultures. One element states: for each organisational function, the effect of different organisational structures and cultures is realistically estimated and assessed". What on earth does that mean? What would it mean to a 16 year-old? What would it mean to the person in the school who presumably is required to teach it?

I have been involved in these studies. It is the sort of matter which I became muddled up with at the London School of Economics. One is dealing with graduates who have a very good background in other matters and are accustomed to dealing with unusual concepts. They find that sort of matter confusing. Imagine what it would be like for 16 to 18 year-olds. One of the document's headings states: Identify and assess the roles which different organisations play in economies". It continues: sufficient information is obtained to identify the features of a range of different types of organisational structure and culture". Another paragraph states: the success of the organisations in meeting economic and social expectations is accurately assessed". What is a 16 to 18 year-old supposed to be able to do in accurately assessing the success of organisations in meeting economic and social expectations? That seems to be absolutely meaningless jargon.

I could go on but the hour is relatively late and I shall not weary your Lordships. In the section headed "Personnel in Business", which is my own area, students are asked to: Recommend criteria and methods for recruitment and selection". Anybody who knows anything about this subject will know that the arguments as regards valid selection methods can occupy a psychologist for a lifetime. One exercise which the student is asked to carry out states: a range of recruitment methods are identified and assessed and appropriate methods which are consistent with organisational objectives and recruitment plans are selected". Is it appropriate for 16 year-olds to be carrying out that sort of exercise?

There is another unit of the document which says, "Evaluate methods to develop staff—at the age of 16! I suppose they will be 18 by the time they finish, and that is not much better. It includes,

  1. "(a) relevant learning methods are accurately summarised
  2. (b) examples of good practice in the use of each method arc identified
  3. (c) methods are assessed against the numbers and roles of staff targeted for development
  4. (d) valid and reliable criteria are developed for the review of each method".
I could go on and on. The document is full of that kind of stuff.

I suggest that it would be a disaster to approach the alternative path to university education along those lines. There is a unit on business economics which I have not related to your Lordships. I suppose any of us who are familiar with undergraduate economic studies could devise a suitable programme which would teach basic essential principles of economics—the law of supply and demand; marginal utility; and opportunity costs. The building bricks of a basic economics course could put in much less of the macro-economics and more of the micro-economics compared to an A-Level economics course, and could add some work inside an enterprise in which the student could do a little field work to illuminate what they were studying. It would be possible to devise a sensible syllabus called "applied economics" along those lines. But not that paper. It is extraordinary what the student is being asked to do.

The matter is much too important to make a mistake at this stage. In the consultative document the national council asked for comments. The Government want it to be piloted by September next year. I point out that it is not only the oddities of the proposed education—to put it politely—but also a question of where the resources are to come from. Are people already in schools to he asked to teach those topics? If so, what on earth will they use for teaching materials? To put it bluntly, what do they know about the subjects included there? If it is to be done properly there will have to be a huge recruitment campaign among teaching staff in order to provide the teaching. They must be people who know enough and know how to liaise with people in industry in order to obtain the practical side of the work required, if one is to do it properly. Where will they come from? As it is, the schools do not know where to turn for scarce specialist teachers. To ask them to provide the kind of specialist teaching required to do it even reasonably well is to ask for a huge addition in resources.

What I am saying is that we must not try to do this the day before yesterday. The Government are rushing educational changes without thinking them out and without going seriously into what is required. They are travelling down the wrong path. I believe the core of the problem is that they have not thought out what is required in the modern world in the way of university education. I believe also that they are bemused by the absurd distinction between what is vocational and what is non-vocational, and that one can put forward a perfectly good system involving two years' preparation leading to university entrance which could be a mixture of so-called vocational and non-vocational subjects.

What is mathematics? Is it vocational or is it non-vocational? To someone like me it is non-vocational and highly educational. For someone who wants to be a civil engineer it is vocational. What is English? In order to do a job everybody, or nearly everybody, needs a grasp of English and to be able to write it. Is that a vocational subject or a non-vocational subject? There are, of course, different ways of teaching the subject. However, the distinction which I believe is at present bedevilling the developments is a false one. We should go back to the drawing board to start again and rebake this cake. It will not do as it stands.

Surely the Government can take the document back for proper consultation and look at what is the heart of the matter; that is, to work for a much wider range of applicants planning to take a wider range of courses. That is the right kind of university entrance and, therefore, the right kind of teaching that should take place between the ages of 16 and 18. If the Government do not do that, with this kind of programme they are heading for disaster.

9.19 p.m.

Lord Beloff

My Lords, we should be indebted at this time of night and after long and tedious discussion of a long and tedious subject like local government to get down to something concrete in the way the noble Baroness has done. The subject she has raised is infinitely more important than whether we should have single-tier local government, counties or districts. It refers directly to the major resource of this country—its young people.

The noble Baroness suggested that, for obscure reasons, the Government are rushing into changes which they have not thought through either from the educational point of view or the resource point of view. In both cases she is right. The Government should be indebted to her. The country would look ridiculous on international comparison if it were to be discovered that this sort of thing is our idea of vocational training. It has a double significance. If the standard is as low or as unattainable as the noble Baroness suggests from the excerpts she gave—I have no doubt that she has studied and could produce other excerpts that would convince us in the same way—to some extent one is deceiving the young people themselves. One is telling them that they are obtaining something which is the equivalent of intellectual training when clearly they are not.

There is also the muddle which I fear has crept into the Government's enthusiasm for the expansion of higher education as regards the alternative route. It is not that there could not be an alternative route and the noble Baroness said as much. The preparation for higher education has two functions. One is to instil a capacity for independent study which is essential for partaking in higher education. There is also the necessity for methodical study which this kind of study is hardly likely to encourage. There is also the question of having the foundations of knowledge which will make it possible to continue the subjects that have been studied at a certain level.

It is often forgotten that that is the dual purpose of A-levels and one reason why many people in universities are chary of abandoning them. There is also the question—this is where the Government's concern about resources should be prominent in their mind—of what the universities do if they accept people whose only preparation has been a certain kind of study. The answer is obvious. If they are bright enough in other respects to be accepted they can be taught what they have not been taught. The first year at university will he spent teaching—in this case economics, but it could equally well apply to other subjects—at a level which could have been taught at the age of 16. In the second year students will be taught what could have been taught at the age of 17. Then two years after their fellows who have done A-levels they will begin to take the same classes.

That means that a three-year course will clearly have to become a five-year course. It seems a most extraordinary waste of rare resources and an extraordinary degree of unnecessary government expenditure if the universities, in the interests of expansion are to be compelled to indulge in remedial teaching of that kind. It is exactly as though secondary schools had to teach reading in the first couple of years to the primary school pupils for whom, somehow or other, that skill had been omitted. One can always catch up. The question is: what is the economical and sensible way of catching up?

The issues takes one beyond the extravagances of this kind of study. There is a curious notion that one can combine wider access—in itself a good idea—to higher education with a diminution of the intensity of that education. On the contrary, the more one expands provision, and the more one provides alternative routes of entry, the more important it will be to cultivate the intensive teaching at university level which has been the special feature of university education in this country. That special feature explains the often quoted statistic that while in many Continental countries most of those who begin a university education do not finish it, in this country a university is very conscious even if it has a wastage rate—people who do not complete the course upon which they have embarked—of only a few percentage points.

Therefore, the argument that the noble Baroness has put before us is central to the whole question of how we expand. Do we expand by finding alternative routes which leave people as well prepared as if they had followed the traditional route, or do we say that it does not matter how well they are prepared as we shall put the onus of preparation on to the institutions of higher education themselves? The issue must he faced. It cannot be settled between now and September. It could be worked out properly over a period of years. There is no urgency about it. The current routes of entry are available. Under the present system there are plenty of applicants to both universities and polytechnics. Do not let us jump into some experimental system until it has at least been worked out and publicly debated. We owe a vote of thanks to the noble Baroness for bringing the issue to our attention.

9.27 p.m.

Lord Kirkwood

My Lords, there must be wide support for the intentions of the proposed general national vocational qualification. For far too long we have neglected youngsters in the 16 to 18 year age group who were either unqualified or unwilling for whatever reason to follow the traditional academic route to higher qualifications, and for whom the routes to vocational qualifications were confusing, if available, and not encouraging and treated them as second class citizens. What a waste of talent in a country that depends greatly on its manufacturing skills. What is now proposed is a nationally validated scheme with students or pupils being treated on a par with their more academic brothers and sisters.

Before giving three cheers, however, I have to enter some caveats. They reinforce what my noble friend Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said but in a slightly different context with which I am more familiar—the area of technology, science and engineering. My first caveat concerns the manpower and financial resources to be provided to implement the scheme by next September. Are there to be new funds to do the job properly? How are the teachers to be trained in time? Are extra teachers to be provided, or are we talking about conversion courses for teachers already in employment?

My second concern is the proposal that the GNVQ should be an entrance qualification into higher education. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to that. An increase in the number of routes into universities and polytechnics is to be welcomed; an increase in the numbers going into higher education is also to be welcomed. But students without the traditional A-level background must not be disadvantaged in their ability to undertake a degree course. No doubt it will be said that universities and polytechnics will have to modify their courses and their teaching methods—and to some extent they are already doing so—but it must be understood that there are limits to how far one can go without devaluing the degree course.

I am aware that staff in university engineering departments, and no doubt elsewhere, already provide remedial or supplementary tutorials to help students who are weak in mathematics or who are without A-level mathematics. Many of them come from BTEC courses. At present, that represents another route into universities. Nevertheless, it is a strain on the resources of university faculties which should not be increased.

There is also concern about the ability of students with a conventional academic background to write clear and grammatical English—but they, at least, have some foundation upon which to build. I often suspect that that comes from the learning they acquired in the foreign language course which they took at school. If we are not careful, we may find ourselves in a much worse situation where students with a general national vocational qualification have little experience in writing English because the emphasis in such courses is, quite properly, upon demonstrating useful skills and what is described in one document as "active learning".

There is much to be said in favour of these vocational qualifications in providing badly needed training and education for 16 to 18 year-olds. However, as a qualification for university entrance without greater convergence from the academic and vocational routes at the point of entrance into higher education—such a convergence may involve altering the structure of A-levels, but convergence there must be—they would be disruptive and counterproductive in university education.

9.32 p.m.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, the Government seem to be in something of a mess on the whole question of participation in education of 16 to 18 year-olds. They are in a mess on the courses which are offered, on the forms of examination and assessment, and on the qualifications on offer on completion of the various courses which are available. Their proposals on GNVQs illustrate that fact only too well.

Like other speakers in the debate, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for introducing the subject. As she said, it is now widely recognised in this country that our participation rates are deplorable. Compared with other OECD and European Community countries, we have far fewer young people in full-time education at this age. For example, in West Germany 95 per cent. of young people are in full-time education and in France the figure is 85 per cent. But in the UK, only 54 per cent. of 16 year-olds and 37 per cent. of 17 year-olds are in full-time education.

Ministers seem to be briefed to appear on television and elsewhere saying that our rates for staying on at school are improving, that there are more GCSE passes and that more people are staying on after the age of 16 and then going into higher education. It is true that the rates of participation are improving, but so are those of everyone else. The problem—and I hope that the Government will respond—is that the participation rates of other countries are improving much faster than ours. Therefore, we are still a very long way behind our competitors. If we are to get anywhere near catching up in the foreseeable future, huge steps need to be taken to improve our educational system so as to make it more attractive to young people.

The consultation paper on GNVQs is the latest recognition of the fact that not all is well, especially in relation to examinations and qualifications for this age group. However, I am afraid to say that the solution to deal with the problem is pathetically inadequate. The Government are in a hole and instead of digging their way out, they seem, with every new initiative—of which general national vocational qualifications is the latest example—to be digging their way deeper and deeper into it. They would do a little better if they were to climb out and start again with a new and fresh approach, as the noble Baroness said, rather than to add seemingly endless new initiatives to an already confusing jungle of qualifications. At the centre of the Government's problem is their pigheaded and obstinate refusal to reform A-levels, and I shall say more about that later.

First, I shall say something about the problem into which the Government have walked with NVQs. I am a little less enthusiastic about them than the noble Baroness. It is the problems experienced with NVQs which have led the Government to the latest initiative with regard to GNVQs. They are trying to make NVQs perform two jobs: first, to provide a ladder of professional advance for adult workers; and, secondly, to provide a vocational foundation for young people aged 16 to 18. I regret to say that they are not succeeding in either task, especially with the provision for 16 to 18 year-olds.

The problem is that the division of curricular options between academic and vocational study polarises knowledge and skill and theory and practice. The students' choice is reduced to what I would see as a forced dichotomy between narrow job-specific training on the one hand, and academic subjects, which are too narrow, on the other.

The Government have charged employer-led bodies with the task of specifying the competences that make up NVQs—to use the jargon. That has led to some institutionalisation of existing labour market practice—a practice that is, regrettably, the source of many of our current problems. NVQs, and the narrowly defined competences at their core, fail adequately to take account of the dynamism and change that must be at the heart of modern business where competitive advantage is defined by improvisation, creativity and innovation. The problem we face is that the vision at the heart of NVQs is that people with competences are not capable people; so I am a little less enthusiastic about NVQs than some other speakers.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, we can agree on the Government's intentions with regard to GNVQs. We on this side of the House share with the Government a commitment to try to improve participation and to provide more opportunities for vocational studies, with clear routes into higher education. But where we part company is on the question of a divided system in which there is an over-rigid demarcation between those pursuing the academic route—A-levels—and those pursuing a vocational route, through GNVQs, BTEC or any other vocational qualification.

When the noble Baroness suggested that the division between vocational and non-vocational studies is false, she implied that the right approach, although she did not go as far as saying this, should be the rationalisation and integration of A-levels and the existing jungle of vocational qualifications into an advanced certificate of education and training. That, of course, is Labour Party policy. It would entail a modular structure where young people may select both practical and theoretical models, and it should be possible to study the advanced certificate either full-time or part-time, with opportunities for some work experience for those who want it.

The new qualifications system that we shall introduce will enhance A-level standards as well as fulfil the Higginson Committee's proposals for a five-subject A-level. It will incorporate all the existing NVQ qualifications at level 3. In doing so, it will end the early selection and low participation that characterise the current system. It will also end over-specialisation. It is important that it should maintain high academic standards for the academically able while at the same time allowing clever young people to obtain some practical skills, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, agrees.

The problem of trying to obtain parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications would become insignificant in an integrated system of this kind. Again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that all young people, including those who are more orientated towards practical and vocational approaches, need also to study some of the foundations of knowledge.

Quite apart from the fundamental flaw in the Government's thinking that parity of esteem is attainable, while continuing to consider the so-called gold standard of A-levels, the latest proposals for GNVQ seem flawed in a number of other respects. All speakers have referred to the quite unrealistic timetable. Five new subjects are to be introduced by next autumn. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, that is an absurdly short time in which to get them off the ground. The colleges and schools need at least a full year to prepare the new courses. They need time to prepare work placements for project work, time for staff development. They need to develop new forms of assessment associated with the new courses. Of course, they need time to get proper assessor training together. To rush in in 1992 will result, I believe, in an ill-prepared initiative in which people will have very little confidence.

The consultation document is also totally unclear on how the new GNVQs will relate to the more occupationally specific NVQs on the one hand and A-levels on the other. It is also unclear how they will relate to the new ordinary and advanced diplomas which the Government propose. Incidentally, to many commentators those look like just two new names tagged on to the existing system.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the occupational areas selected for GNVQs, although the basis for choice is not clear. There are also some extremely large categories, such as manufacturing, which ought to be broken down. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about some of the absurdities in the consultation document on business.

I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who said that there is a need for more young people to have competence in a foreign language. I agree. At the moment, there is apparently no intention of introducing this into GNVQs.

The question of equivalence to A-levels seems ambiguous. If a GNVQ is meant to be equivalent to two A-levels, as is implied in the Government's White Paper, does that mean that it will provide access to relevant degrees in higher education? Are universities and other higher education institutions to be asked to accept it as an entry qualification on exactly the same basis as A-levels or will admission tutors be concerned that it is not really comparable in terms of the level of knowledge or the understanding attained? That was a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.

The document is extremely unclear about what is entailed in work placements. We have yet another new title for a qualification for 16 to 18-year olds which will be confusing for the students, for teachers and for parents. There are already a number of qualifications which cover a similar specification to GNVQs, of which BTEC is one. All this points to the need for a more integrated and rationalised system to which I referred earlier.

Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked, how will these new programmes be resourced? The consultation paper admits that resources will be a problem, especially for the schools which already face pressures. I believe there will also be a problem for colleges. They are being asked to ensure that there will be proper external verification of the new courses. They are also being asked to provide high quality course work, projects and work placements. All that involves large costs in time and therefore in money. Where is the money to come from? One cannot continue to expect people in the teaching profession, at whatever level, to take on endless new initiatives without providing the necessary back-up in terms of funding and without allowing the teachers involved the necessary time for preparation.

I regret to say that the whole proposal seems somewhat ill conceived for the reasons already stated. It has been rushed in with no clear indication of the extra funds needed to get it off the ground. I wish to refer the Minister to the proposals of the Institute for Public Policy Research. I must declare an interest as chairman of the board of trustees of that body. The institute has put forward proposals for a British baccalaureate. That, the Government will find, is a more coherent and more radical solution to the problem of qualifications for 16 to 18 year-olds than the solution the Government have proposed as regards GNVQs. I wish the Government would take the proposals of that body more seriously.

9.46 p.m.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important matter. The noble Baroness drew heavily on a document that has just come into my possession. It has therefore not even been in the Government's possession. Therefore I doubt whether I can make many comments on it as it is not directed at the Government and I have only had a short time in which to study it.

Although not many noble Lords have participated in this debate, those who have done so have far greater authority in this subject than I shall ever aspire to. We shall take careful account of everything that has been said. This matter is purely at the consultation stage and the consultation does not even involve the Government directly. Accordingly my comments will inevitably be of a general nature.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. However, I omitted to say that the council is expecting to receive comments by 2nd December. After that date it will go ahead with the matter. That is why I have initiated the debate tonight. Once that date has been reached, the council will steam ahead with its plans. Therefore there is great urgency. It was foolish of me not to mention that date earlier. I hope that will register with the noble Lord.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will be patient as I shall discuss the timescale. The noble Baroness and others have used the opportunity provided by this debate to place on record their concerns. I too take this opportunity to place on record the Government's general approach to the subject.

The Government's White Paper Education and Training for the 21st Century called for parity of esteem for vocational and academic qualifications. I welcome the opportunity for this House to demonstrate the importance which it attaches to vocational qualifications and to improving the vocational education and training offered to our young people. The Government's intention to introduce general national vocational qualifications—general NVQs—was announced in the White Paper. That White Paper set out the Government's aims for vocational education and training.

Those aims are to ensure that high quality education or training becomes the norm for all 16 and 17 year-olds who can benefit from it; to increase the all-round levels of attainment by young people; and to increase the proportion of young people acquiring higher levels of skill and expertise. General national vocational qualifications have an important part to play in achieving those aims. For too long in this country we have admired academic skills and talents at the expense of practical skills and talents. We all know that the entrepreneur, the engineer and the highly skilled craftsman are just as valuable to society as the teacher and researcher. But when it comes to qualifications we behave as if the vocational is automatically inferior to the academic. That was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood.

We want parity of esteem for academic and vocational qualifications. We also want a full range of qualifications available to suit all mixtures of ability, talent and interests. I believe that general NVQs will help in achieving those objectives. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her enthusiastic support for those principles.

Immediately following publication of the White Paper, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science invited the National Council for Vocational Qualifications—the NCVQ—to lead the development of general NVQs and to propose criteria to govern general NVQs within the overall NVQ framework. Our intention is to make the first general NVQs available in colleges and schools from September 1992. That was one of the anxieties raised by the noble Baroness and others. By way of reassurance, I state that September 1992 is not the final deadline. It is intended to be the first stage of a phased introduction of GNVQs. We expect only a very small number of GNVQs to be on offer from that date.

In that context it is important to remember that we are not starting entirely from scratch. A good number of general vocational qualifications have been available for a considerable time. Many of those qualifications are likely to be suitable, with appropriate modifications, for accreditation of general NVQs. FE colleges have a long and successful record of offering those qualifications and schools have already begun to gear themselves up for the delivery of vocational qualifications. For example, around 140 schools started offering BTEC Firsts to their sixth form pupils in September 1991. Around 1,000 more have plans to do so from September 1992. We were building on that experience rather than starting from scratch. However, as I say, there is nothing sacred about the date 1992.

The NCVQ has been working closely in collaboration with the three major vocational awarding bodies—the Business and Technician Education Council, City and Guilds and the RSA Examinations Board. The Further Education Unit and industry lead bodies, representing employers' interests, have also been very closely involved.

In mid-October the NCVQ published a consultation document containing proposals for criteria and some example qualifications. That document seeks views on an assortment of important issues. The NCVQ will be reporting the results of that consultation to my government colleagues at around the turn of the year. Final decisions on the shape of general NVQs will be taken as soon as possible thereafter.

It is important to see the general NVQ initiative in the wider context of the development of NVQs. The NCVQ is charged with establishing a comprehensive framework of NVQs.

The NVQ framework divides the economy into 11 occupational areas. Examples might include tending animals, plants and land and business services. There are five NVQ levels, ranging from level 1, which covers foundation qualifications, to level 5, which will cover high level professional qualifications. Each NVQ is allocated to one of these levels and is designed to help progress from one level to another. The aim is to allow those taking the qualifications and others with an interest—employers, parents and teachers—to see clearly how one qualification relates to others. For example NVQ level 3—very broadly equivalent to A-levels—covers qualifications for technician, advanced craft and supervisor jobs.

The NVQ approach is to specify qualifications in some detail in the form of the outcomes to be achieved. This means that students are clear what they are expected to know, understand and be able to do. It also means that teachers are clear what should be covered in a course and employers and gatekeepers to higher level are clear what students offering NVQs have achieved. Qualifications are unit-based, so that students can accumulate units towards a full qualification at their own pace.

Why do we need general NVQs? The present occupationally specific NVQs are designed for a specific purpose; namely, to ensure that the holder has the knowledge and skills—the competence—necessary to do a particular job or range of jobs to the required standard. NVQs are particularly suitable for those who are already in work. They will help to ensure that employees receive recognition for the competences that they have already developed and encouragement to take the training necessary to progress to higher level jobs.

However, many young people, and some older ones, want to study for vocational qualifications which prepare them for a variety of occupations. Some are not ready to make an irrevocable choice about what they want to do next. We therefore need a range of general vocational qualifications which cater for their needs and which form part of the NVQ framework. We do not want to create a new qualification which is unrelated to other vocational qualifications on offer. However, vocational qualifications can offer a great deal more besides preparation for employment. That is clearly a central aim, but it is also possible for vocational courses to provide a broad general education and a ladder to higher education alongside academic qualifications. General NVQs will provide breadth and enable progression to higher education.

If I recall his comment correctly, my noble friend Lord Beloff fears that the result of our proposals will be a diminution of intensity. I cannot agree. There is already a small but significant vocational route to higher education. The best BTEC students do as well as the best A-level students. Universities and polytechnics have accepted students offering vocational qualifications without increasing the length of degree courses. Already about 10 per cent. of entrants to degree level studies come to such courses on the basis of vocational qualifications. The vocational route is stronger to polytechnics than it is to universities. For example, 40 per cent. of those starting engineering and technology degrees in polytechnics entered on the basis of vocational qualifications.

The Government's forecasts show one in three young people going on to higher education by the end of the century, a fact acknowledged even by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. We too believe that we should do better. We envisage that many more than at present will travel along the vocational route. There are many young people with the potential to benefit from higher education but who do not find the traditional A-level route attractive or appropriate. We expect general NVQs to play an important role in helping to meet their needs.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, we believe that A-levels are a tried and tested part of the education system. We do not believe that participation and achievement will be raised by discarding them. The popularity of A-levels remains high. Take-up continues to rise. They are entirely appropriate for the group of pupils for whom they are designed. Twenty per cent. of 18 year-olds now achieve two or more A-level passes.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a great deal of criticism of A-levels by employers, universities and many others who work in the education system because they are too narrow and over-specialised and, as the noble Lord himself admitted, inappropriate for young people?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, we not only admit that, but are doing something about it. Is that not the key to what I am saying?

The fully integrated baccalaureate-type structure is neither necessary nor desirable. Academic and vocational qualifications are tried and tested and we must build on their success. Those who argue for a baccalaureate say that A-levels are the problem. They are not. The problem is the low status of vocational qualifications. Our policies on diplomas and related matters are designed to change that.

Perhaps I may now turn to the question of resources. As for the resource implications of general NVQs, I mentioned that NCVQ is currently consulting on its initial proposals for general NVQs and it will be a little while before we know the final shape of the first general NVQs. Clearly I cannot pre-empt the results of that consultation. However, I hope I can offer some broad reassurance.

General vocational qualifications have been on offer in FE colleges for some time and have been delivered successfully. I have referred to the significant numbers of students who already progress to higher education on the basis of vocational qualifications. So we are not starting from a blank sheet: the foundations are already firmly in place in the FE sector and we intend that general NVQs should build on existing good practice wherever possible. There is no reason to suppose that general NVQs will overall be more expensive to provide than existing general vocational courses and there should be some scope to draw on existing facilities.

We shall expect these new courses to be funded by institutions—colleges and schools—in broadly the same way as existing courses. It will be for the institutions to decide which courses to offer in the light of their perception of the market need. Clearly, it will be for each institution to judge which qualifications it can offer in a cost-effective way within its budget. As we gain experience of these qualifications, we shall know more about viable teaching group sizes and the resources necessary to deliver high quality programmes.

The Government's Further and Higher Education Bill proposes new arrangements for the funding and government of further education colleges and sixth-form colleges. We propose that the detailed consideration of the method of funding institutions should be a matter for funding councils, not the Government. But we intend that the funding should be related to student numbers and designed to encourage institutions to recruit more students.

I realise that noble Lords expressed considerable anxiety about the question of funding. I repeat that we do not know precisely what form the general NVQs will take. The first phase, due to start in September 1992, will involve introducing the new vocational qualifications in a small number of colleges and schools. Awarding bodies will give these institutions a good deal of support. When we are clearer about general NVQs, we shall have to think about whether it might be appropriate to allocate some education support or training grants to help institutions to introduce them.

Vocational courses have been available in some schools for some time but on a very limited scale. We are encouraging more schools to offer vocational options. It is encouraging that a number of schools already offer general vocational qualifications in their sixth forms and many more plan to do so from next September. Under the arrangements for local management of schools each extra pupil that a school recruits, including full-time 16 to 18 year-olds, adds to that school's budget.

We recognise that the introduction of new programmes—particularly new vocational programmes in an institution which has not previously done such work—requires careful preparation and training for the lecturers, teachers and other staff involved. We are already providing substantial earmarked funds to help colleges and schools to introduce new vocational qualifications. We shall be considering the extent to which future earmarked funding should be targeted on general NVQs.

I have covered most of the areas that have been brought up. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke of the Government being in a mess and in a hole. She was at odds with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She conducted her usual political doomwatch talk that she feels it is her mission to do.

We are progressing and we are not complacent. We see the need to go on improving. I remind the noble Baroness that 90 per cent. of 16 year-olds go on to full-time or part-time education or training. It is not altogether a dismal story. I repeat that this is so new—the consultation paper that has been quoted from is in a very early stage. I well understand the anxiety of noble Lords. I am authorised by my noble friend Lady Blatch to tell your Lordships that she will read and take very seriously what has been said tonight.

In one sense it is unfortunate that this debate is taking place now, in the middle of the consultation period, before the final shape of general NVQs is known. We simply are not in a position yet to answer many of the questions that arise. Nevertheless, I think that this debate—and in particular the positive views expressed by your Lordships—has played a part in drawing attention to an initiative which is one of the cornerstones of our efforts to improve the standards of education and training in this country.

House adjourned at five minutes past ten o'clock.