To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent consultations she has had with independent schools concerning the assisted places scheme. [37265]

I regularly discuss the assisted places scheme with representatives of independent schools.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of the assisted places scheme to many children and their parents in Batley and Spen? Is she also aware that many people consider the scheme to be good value for money? It would be abolished by the Opposition, who cannot even get their own sums right.

I am well aware of the value of the assisted places scheme to many families and children throughout the country, including, in my hon. Friend's constituency, those who attend Batley grammar school. My hon. Friend is right: assisted pupils obtain good results—better results than similar maintained school pupils. Assisted pupils obtain up to three A-level grades over all subjects. The Labour party is completely wrong—at best, it has got its mathematics wrong and at worst, it is playing a con trick. Completely phasing out the assisted places scheme would still save only about £24 million a year, provide fewer than 1,000 extra teachers and reduce average infant class sizes by less than half a pupil. It is still nowhere near the Opposition's pledge to eliminate classes of more than 30 pupils.

Does the hon. Lady know that, since its inception, the scheme has taken approximately £20 million in Wales? Does she accept that it would have been far better to have spent that sum on modernising, extending and refurbishing the older schools? Why not ditch the assisted places scheme, and the wretched voucher scheme?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The average cost of an assisted place is somewhat higher, but of the same order as an average maintained pupil place. The hon. Gentleman should be well aware that 80 per cent. of the assisted pupils come from socio-economic groups C1 and E—the lower-middle and working classes. The scheme is of great value to parents and pupils throughout the country.

I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says about the scheme, but may I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider reintroducing in the next Parliament the direct grant scheme, which was infinitely better than the assisted places scheme?

I will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend says about the direct grant scheme but, as we all know, many of the direct grant schools were forced to become independent schools by the policies of the last Labour Government, if anyone can remember them.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on obtaining extra money for the assisted places scheme, thus enabling the imminent Labour Government to reduce class sizes more quickly. Will she now fight for equivalent funding for the 86,000 extra children who are to be in the system this year and the 60,000 who are to be in it next year on the same basis as she proposes to subsidise the independent schools under the assisted places scheme?

The hon. Gentleman is up to his old tricks. He knows that the cost of the scheme is £114 million this year, rising to £118 million next year. He also knows that he could not phase out the scheme immediately as, under present legislation, it would take three years to phase it out. He has repeatedly asserted that the money would be used to reduce class sizes, but in the first year of phasing out, he would save no more than £5 million. However, if those children were educated back in the maintained sector at the cost per head of educating a child at Hackney Downs, there would be no change from the money that we put into the assisted places scheme.

Does my hon. Friend find it extraordinary that the Labour party is against assisted places in schools but in favour of assisted places in the shadow Cabinet?

If the Labour party is so keen to abolish assisted places, it had better start at home first.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the impact of the new employer contributions on support for disabled people through the access to work scheme. [37266]

TheEmployment Service will be monitoring the new arrangements for access to work to ensure continuing effective help for disabled people.

Is it not already clear that this new scheme, by its reduced funding compared with that of the original scheme, is already having an adverse effect on both employed and self-employed disabled people, as they must now rely for equipment on their employers or fund it themselves? Does the Minister accept that the scheme will have a particularly adverse effect on people who are self-employed, who work in small firms or who are in voluntary organisations that employ many disabled people? Does he think that it is fair for the Government to impose a penalty on employers who have the best record on employment of disabled people?

No, I do not accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman. First, there is a considerable increase in funding for access to work this year compared with funding for the original scheme—it is up by 50 per cent. Secondly, the contributions that would be expected either from an employer or from a self-employed individual are capped, and the average contributions are extremely low. On average, a self-employed person would be expected to pay £240, and, based on experience, it is likely that an employer would be expected to pay £540. I think that those are perfectly reasonable contributions to expect people to make to help disabled people. I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that the access to work scheme is designed to help employers and individuals overcome problems created by disability. As has always been the case, if people are unemployed—I think that we would all agree that they are in the most need—they will make no contribution at all.

On all the evidence available to the Minister, does he accept that employer contributions are unfair to small businesses and to the self-employed? If the Minister really wants to support small firms and self-employed disabled people, will he now review their liability to pay up to £2,000 a year under access to work? Does the Minister accept that small firms simply do not understand why they are exempt from the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 but not from employer contributions under access to work? What is the difference?

The difference is in the legislation.

Which one was wrong?

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is making these points, because he totally opposed any exclusion for small firms in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Labour party—to a man and to a woman—went through the Lobbies on that legislation against the interests of small firms. It is somewhat hypocritical now to pray in aid the support of small businesses. The fact is that, as always, we have had to find a balance between cost to the taxpayer and the help that we want to provide to the disabled. I am amazed to find that the hon. Gentleman continues to be part of that group of Labour Members who seem to believe that the public purse is bottomless.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to enhance the security of schools. [37267]

This question is about school security. Given that the matter of children's safety is involved in the answer to it, however, I should like to express my sympathy and that of Conservative Members to the parents, family and friends of Caroline Dickinson, the Cornish schoolgirl who was so tragically murdered last week in France. I should like also to express our sympathy and support for the head, governors and staff of her school, Launceston college.

The Government have accepted in full the 22 recommendations of the working group on school security.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her reassuring comments. What she said about the recent tragedies is endorsed by all hon. Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the successful bids made by two schools in my constituency—St. Felix middle school in Newmarket and Mildenhall upper school—for closed circuit television, which will be greatly welcomed not only by parents, governors and teachers but by the community at large?

I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome. More than 100 schools have been able to benefit from the Home Office's CCTV scheme, which will be a useful addition to the security of children at the schools involved.

I know that the Secretary of State has already expressed sympathy to the parents, children and, indeed, the whole community in Wolverhampton, who were devastated by the tragic attack on the children and adults at St. Luke's school two weeks ago. I should like to say a very sincere thank you to all hon. Members who have, through the early-day motion that I tabled, expressed their good wishes and sympathy to everyone involved.

In view of that tragic accident, and many others that we have witnessed, would the Secretary of State consider bringing forward the moneys that I know that she has earmarked for next year into this year's budget? There was a call at the Conference of Local Education Authorities' conference last week, urging the Secretary of State to make more resources available. Wolverhampton is spending £60,000 this year, but that is wholly inadequate to meet security needs in our schools. Will she please consider giving the money in this financial year rather than the next?

This is of course a matter of great concern. As the hon. Gentleman said, I have been in touch with St. Luke's school in Wolverhampton. As he knows, schools and local education authorities are already spending on school security. The way in which the money will be spent is important. Schools have varying needs, and it is necessary that LEAs and schools conduct a thoroughly professional risk assessment of the type of arrangements that need to be made to improve school security. That is why they have already acted on some of the working group's recommendations on security, why we have already allocated more money through the CCTV scheme, why I announced yesterday that 60 schools would benefit from the schools renewal challenge fund to help them with their security arrangements, why LEAs already have guidance to help them decide how best to allocate the extra money when it comes and why schools will receive guidance in September. A great deal of work needs to be done. We will make new moneys available, but we have to be certain that they are allocated according to a school's need and spent in the best way.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of the money that will be raised from this year's Burbage charity bike aid in my constituency will go towards CCTV in local schools? Will she congratulate the organisers on that decision and wish them well at that popular event, which is enjoyed by thousands of my constituents each year?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituents on their effort to help with arrangements for school security. There will no doubt be other such money-raising efforts but, of course, any money spent has to fit into a sensible framework to ensure that it is spent in the best way. As I said, the Government will be making extra money available.

I join the Secretary of State in her expressions of sympathy to those affected by the recent tragedies and repeat my congratulations on her seeking and gaining widespread support for the measures now being proposed to improve school safety. Although it may be impossible to implement immediately, does she agree that it would be sensible to agree in principle that, over time, all schools should have a single boundary?

Although I realise that the question was sensibly meant, that would be extremely difficult to put into practice because of the different geographical locations of school premises. It is important that schools assess their needs in the light of their own physical circumstances. In some cases, they may need a single boundary or entry point. The purpose of the conference that we intend to hold in the autumn will be to discuss best practice. Although there is a great deal of good practice, we found that those in the working group did not necessarily know about it. I take the hon. Gentleman's suggestion on board and the conference might be able to disseminate it, but there will also be many others.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about making additional funding available for school security. However, is it not important that we should not allow local authorities to get away with hiding behind the Government in respect of such an important issue? If a local education authority believes that priorities need to be addressed in terms of school security, should it not use the funds that are currently being wasted elsewhere rather than blame the Government for its own failure to act?

Many local education authorities are extremely concerned about those matters. They already have—as we have just dispatched it—guidance on the arrangements that will be made for the new GEST—grants for education support and training scheme—money that will be earmarked for school security. The money will be available next year. If there were any local education authorities that needed reminding, they have their reminder.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the failure rate in new businesses on employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. [37268]

No direct assessment has been made, but research shows that new business survival, and hence employment potential, is affected by the level of business management skills and experience of the proprietor.

Is not investment crucial to the long-term success of new businesses and the creation of jobs? Does the Minister accept that Britain now has a lower level of investment than in 1989? Could that be why the number of jobs in manufacturing has fallen by 500,000 over the past five years?

The hon. Lady falls into the trap of equating numbers of jobs in a sector—particularly manufacturing—with the health of the sector. For decades, jobs have been shed in manufacturing because of automation and technology. That does not mean that the sector is less advanced or profitable—probably the reverse. All businesses need to invest, both in equipment—which is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—and in their work force—which is my responsibility. That is why the Government have made a range of proposals targeted at small businesses and businesses generally to encourage them to invest in their work force.

We all support reductions in the failure rate of small businesses. The Government are doing a great deal—through business links and other schemes—to reduce that failure rate. Does my hon. Friend not deplore, as I do, the emphasis that the question places on the failure rate? The main employment effect of small businesses has been a massive increase in employment as a result of the massive increase in the number of small businesses since 1979 of about 1 million.

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. There are now more than 50 per cent. more businesses than there were in 1979. That in itself is good for employment. He is also right that we should not dwell on what are often described as failures. Just because a business may cease to operate does not mean that it is a failure. [Laughter.] In their laughter, the Opposition demonstrate how little they understand about businesses. A business may stop trading in the same name because it has been sold or because the proprietor has retired, or for a whole range of reasons. The NatWest survey of small businesses demonstrated that 73 per cent. of cessations were for reasons not associated with bankruptcy or solvency.

May I associate myself and the Opposition with the words of concern and sympathy expressed by the Secretary of State about the tragic death of Caroline Dickinson last week?

Will the Minister confirm that the company failure rate, which we believe is significant, is running at nearly 1,000 a week and increasing, and that, each day, in the first three months of 1996, 2,500 people lost their jobs? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the impression that Ministers like to give—that unemployment is falling—the more accurate labour force survey shows that the number of people in employment fell by 74,000 in the first three months of this year and that there are still 1 million people fewer in jobs than there were the day that the Prime Minister entered Downing street? Is he not ashamed that, since 1979, Britain has had the worst job creation record of any major industrial nation?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took so long in asking his question because as he did so his facts became more and more obscure. Unemployment has been falling consistently for a considerable time, thanks not only to the Government's economic policies but to our resistance of policies that would have damaged employment prospects: the social chapter and the minimum wage. Those are the Labour party's policies and they would destroy employment. Wherever the hon. Gentleman would care to look throughout the rest of Europe, he will find countries suffering from those problems. Unemployment in the major European countries is much higher than ours, and is often still rising.

Is it not inevitable that, if there is a substantial increase in new business start-ups, there will also be a corresponding increase in the number of business failures? Is not the creation of new businesses the best way of increasing employment? Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to maintaining that momentum by opposing the national minimum wage and the social chapter, which are so destructive to businesses and so often lead to failure on the continent?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is important that we do whatever we can to encourage small businesses and the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship that leads to their success. That is what the Government's policies are directed at. He is also right to remind us again about the minimum wage. Conservative Members have always been amazed by the fact that the Opposition have never said how they would resolve the problem of the restoration of differentials—a problem that is underlying the minimum wage and would destroy more jobs than anything else. We await with interest to see how they plan to address that issue.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policies she intends to pursue in respect of those unemployed for 12 months or more. [37269]

We shall continue to pursue the policies that have seen long-term unemployment fall by more than a quarter since the start of 1994.

When will Ministers apologise for the fact that the number of people out of work for 12 months or more has more than doubled since April 1979? Does that figure not show that unemployment has increased substantially during the 17 years of Tory government? The Minister is nodding. How much more human misery is to be inflicted on the country before this wretched Government are turned out at the election?

I can indeed confirm that unemployment is higher now than it was in 1979, as it is right across the European Union. The hon. Gentleman should cast his mind back to the 1970s, when everybody was doing well in terms of employment and unemployment. In the 1990s, life is tougher and more difficult. Compared with our European partners and competitors, we have served the employed and unemployed so much better because our policies have turned out to be more relevant to the needs of the 1990s. Opposition Members persist in turning the clock back to the 1970s—not only in their faulty memories but in their yearnings for policies that have long since passed—but the result of putting such policies into effect would be a return to the conditions of the 1970s, which were so much worse than they are today.

As part of the Government's programme of encouraging the unemployed to seek work, they have signed a contract with a company called Trinity Newspapers, which produces for distribution in jobcentres in England and Wales a magazine known as Jobsearch. Among other things, the magazine invites vulnerable unemployed men and women to take up prostitution as a business opportunity. My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) has asked the Minister to withdraw that offensive magazine and its job advertisements, but was refused on the ground that the Department believes that the unemployed should have the widest possible access to job opportunities.

It is scandalous that such a magazine and such advertisements should have been distributed to vulnerable unemployed people. The Government's history of massaging the unemployment figures is wholly unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State today issue instructions for the withdrawal of the magazine and its accompanying advertisements, and initiate an inquiry into how it was ever distributed in the first place?

Before the hon. Gentleman massages himself into hysteria, I advise a little more calm. Of course I shall have a look at what he has described. If there is any substance to it, we shall see what can and should be done. [Interruption.] There is no point in pushing a piece of paper across the Table at me, because I do not know its provenance or the circumstances in which it came to be written. I prefer the approach of calm investigation and reflection to the hysterical outbursts that characterise the behaviour of Opposition Members.

We shall have a good look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and then, I have no doubt, we will take the appropriate action.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to monitor the levels of employment and unemployment among young people with sensory impairments after they leave full-time education or training. [37270]

The Department is funding a new national survey of disabled people and their employment, education and training, to provide information on different age groups and the impact of different disabilities.

Given that the unemployment rate among those who are hearing impaired is twice the national average, and that only one quarter of those who are visually impaired are in work, can the Minister guarantee that this survey will give us the tools that we need to analyse the pattern of discrimination? In particular, will he see what happens to people who have been through training programmes, to find out how effective those are, where the people end up, and what is the long-term impact of the training programmes?

Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The survey will investigate the nature and severity of disability, employment status, characteristics of employment—permanent, temporary, part time, full time—qualifications and training, income and benefits, equipment, aids and adaptations, working arrangements, attitudes and experiences in the labour market, and household composition. What is more, the exercise starts today.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils with hearing impairments are being taught in mainstream schools. [37271]

Statistics on the number of pupils with hearing impairments in mainstream schools are not collected centrally.

I am aware of the Minister's close personal interest in this matter. In the light of that, does she agree that we need data on the numbers and experiences of youngsters with disabilities in mainstream schools so that we can ensure that mainstreaming is working effectively for them? Should not such data be collected by the Government?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging my interest in this matter; of course I shall look at what he says. Subject to certain conditions, local education authorities have a duty to provide mainstream places for children with special educational needs when that is what parents want. We have encouraged LEAs to integrate children with SEN in the main stream. I have seen radio aids being used in the classroom very effectively—they certainly level the ground for children with a hearing impairment.

While I am on my feet, the hon. Gentleman might like to know of Langdon secondary school, in his constituency, which has a learning support department that has recently twinned with the effectiveness division of the Department for Education and Employment. Teachers and pupils have visited the Department, and art from that school is on display in Sanctuary buildings.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the nursery voucher scheme, which gives an opportunity to spot at an early stage children with special educational needs, particularly those with hearing difficulties?

Of course I welcome wholeheartedly the nursery voucher scheme. I am pleased that, from April next year, parents of four-year-olds will have access to good-quality nursery education throughout the country, whatever the needs of the child.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research has been carried out to investigate the factors underlying the difference in A-level results between boys and girls. [37272]

A number of independent studies have been published, including a recent report funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

The Minister is no doubt aware of the recent report that the differences may be due to the extra flair and self-confidence that young males are said to have at that age. If that is anything like the truth, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it is not simply the format of A-level examinations that is producing the difference between males and females?

I am not sure to what the hon. Gentleman ascribes that series of assumptions. It is interesting that the gender difference at GCSE level is dramatically reduced by the time children get to A-levels. We also know—although I cannot explain it—that boys get more grade As while girls get more of all the other pass grades. No clear lessons can be drawn from that, but we are anxious to ensure that exams—whatever form they take—are right for all young people, regardless of gender.

Is it not essential to maintain single-sex education for girls and boys, given that girls develop at a different rate in schools assigned to their sex only? This is the Government's policy and not that of the Opposition, who would destroy single-sex schools, grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools and go back to the old 1960s notion of neighbourhood comprehensive schools.

My hon. Friend knows that the Government's policy is based on diversity and choice. It should be for children—when they reach a reasonable age—and their parents to decide on the right form of education, whether it be at grant-maintained schools, LEA schools or single-sex schools, but they must also decide which qualifications are right for them. That is why we have set out not only to maintain and improve the rigour of A-levels, but to provide general national vocational qualifications and modern apprenticeships so that something is available to everyone to make the most of their talents.

Does the Minister accept that we are seeing a significant change in the relative performance at examination level of boys and girls, and that the consequences of that change extend far beyond the classroom? Is it not the case that the Government have failed to recognise this change and to take any action on the important issues that it raises? Will he give a commitment today that, as a useful first step, he will require the Office for National Statistics to provide statistics and information on how boys and girls perform as part of individual school inspections?

The Office for Standards in Education has already done that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on teaching skills and methods employed in schools. [37273]

All teachers need to be equipped with the most effective teaching methods and to know when to use them.

Have not a number of reports highlighted the results of the trendy lefty education and training methods that we have had in far too many schools, particularly in inner cities, since the 1960s? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that, having introduced testing in the teeth of Labour opposition—which has highlighted where the shortcomings are to be found—the Government will continue their work on teacher training and get back to the proper teaching methods that will bring the results that the country is crying out for?

We have put in place several reforms of initial teacher training to ensure that teachers are equipped as practically as possible. We are also reviewing in-service training. Among the things that we have already announced are the 25 literacy and numeracy centres, the headlamp scheme to train newly appointed heads and a new national professional qualification for headship. In September, I intend to announce plans to reform initial teacher training and to introduce a national curriculum for it to ensure that all teachers are trained in the most effective manner.

Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the teaching skill, and whatever methods are employed, the effectiveness of teaching is enhanced if class sizes are smaller rather than steadily increasing, as they are at present?

We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members about smaller classes and how they would seek to fund them by raiding the assisted places scheme budget, thereby depriving children from some of the worst-off families in the land of the chance of an excellent education in the independent sector. I wonder whether the hon. Lady knows that the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales has told her Front-Bench spokesmen that their figures take no account of how the extra money identified by them would reach schools or of the extra costs of, for example, accommodation for the additional number. I am sure that she will be concerned about the fact that Labour's advisers say that its figures do not add up.

Over the summer, will my right hon. Friend reconfirm that traditional methods and whole-class teaching have much to offer to improve primary school standards, and will she give strong support to the chief inspector, who is doing admirable work to highlight both good and bad performance and to offer some leadership in the profession?

Yes, the chief inspector has provided some stringent comments on what needs to be done to improve education standards. Teachers should certainly be equipped for whole-class teaching to provide active instruction rather than passive supervision. That is what we intend to put in place.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to maintain standards in higher education. [37274]

Prime responsibility for maintaining standards in higher education rests with the academic institutions, acting individually and collectively.

Does the Minister agree that quality in higher education depends on having common degree standards in different institutions, from Birmingham to Bradford and from Leicester to Luton? What is his response to the evidence, now confirmed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, that institutions differ markedly in degree standards both between institutions and between subjects, sometimes deliberately? Is not that unfair to students who rely on degree standards for entry to postgraduate work? Does it not devalue higher education?

The hon. Gentleman must know that there is a system of quality assurance in place and that there is a continuing effort to try to improve it to make it even more effective. I wonder whether his comments reveal the hidden threat to the academic autonomy of our higher education institutions that his party poses. One could readily conclude from his words that he would seek to impose a straitjacket on our higher education sector, which has for so long prided itself on its autonomy and independence of government.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she has taken to ensure access to nursery education for children with special needs. [37275]

The Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996 will ensure that all children, including those with special educational needs, have an equal opportunity to experience good-quality nursery education.

Has not research in Britain and America shown that flat-rate vouchers impact against children with special needs because their education requirements inevitably cost much more? Precisely what is the Secretary of State going to do to ensure that children with special needs will not be denied places, which are of particular importance to them, in nursery schools?

I agree that nursery education is particularly important for children with special educational needs, to which a lot of attention was paid during the passage of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. The new money made available as a result of the voucher scheme will contribute to meeting the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs. Local education authority budgets will be reduced only by £1,100 for each four-year-old who has a maintained place. If a place costs more, the difference is left with the LEA. If a child returns to the LEA for its nursery place, so does the money.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received regarding the planned funding of higher education in the period 1996–97 to 1998–99. [37277]

My right hon. Friend has received nearly 700 representations about higher education funding this year.

Will the Minister comment on Cambridge university's decision to accept money from British American Tobacco in view of that company's falsification of data about the addictiveness of tobacco? Does the Minister think that it is desirable for higher education institutions to be pushed into a financial position so extreme that they must accept money from such sources?

No, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a decision by an entirely autonomous higher education institution.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council has suggested that all funding for education, including higher education, is damaged by the area cost adjustment—which supposedly acts to the detriment of Lancashire and in favour of the south of England? Is my hon. Friend aware of any Labour-controlled council that benefits from ACA that would forgo it? Is he further aware that Labour Front Benchers do not have a policy on that matter?

I am not surprised by my right hon. Friend's last observation. We all eagerly await the emergence of Labour policy on the issue. My right hon. Friend makes a telling point. When we have a unanimous view from local authority organisations on the area cost adjustment, we will be prepared to consider it. I hear no unified voice from those bodies, but I await the day.

Surely the Minister is aware of the furore in the university sector in respect of higher education funding. Is not it the case, as vice-chancellors throughout the land are saying, that if the equipment used to teach postgraduate and other students of science and applied science is denied them, that will affect the quality of the degrees that are awarded? Ten per cent. of university income comes from overseas students. If standards fall—the Minister has seen the warning signs-higher education funding will be in dreadful trouble.

The hon. Gentleman used the word furore. Of the 140 higher education institutions, we have received between 50 and 100 letters. Of the country's 1.4 million students, we have received 200 to 300 letters, and from a total of 55,000 staff, we have been inundated with 200 to 300 letters. That gives some idea of the "furore".

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure high education standards in those places administering the nursery voucher scheme; and if she will make a statement. [37278]

Any establishment participating in the nursery education voucher scheme must work towards a set of desirable outcomes for children's learning, submit to educational inspection and publish information for parents. Those and other detailed requirements will ensure a consistently high standard over the whole scheme.

I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on the quality of nursery education for four-year-olds. Will he give the further assurance that no three-year-old currently in nursery education will lose out under the scheme? What effect will the scheme have on the education of children by the age of five, in terms of the tests that, according to national press reports, they are likely to receive at that age?

The voucher scheme has no impact on three-year-olds—although I expect that, under the next Conservative Government, there will be a reasonable prospect of extending the scheme to cover three-year-olds. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a report from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority on base line assessment, and we look forward to full public consultation this autumn.

Has the Minister yet assessed the extra costs involved in providing a high-quality education for children with special needs in the voucher scheme? If he has not done it yet, why not?

The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say a moment ago that the cost of a statemented child over and above the £1,100 voucher value will be unaffected by the arrival of the voucher. The hon. Lady will be aware that power has been taken in the legislation to ensure that pre-statemented special needs children—an important category—will receive assistance from local education authorities. That will be part and parcel of the annual negotiations with local authorities in the ordinary way.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to monitor standards in the grant-maintained sector. [37279]

Standards in grant-maintained schools are monitored in the same way as in local authority schools, particularly through Office for Standards in Education inspection reports and published performance data.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not surprising that the three grant-maintained schools in my constituency in Sutton are heavily oversubscribed because they have excellent results in public examinations? Does he agree that that is consistent with the Ofsted report, which has judged that 40 per cent. of grant-maintained schools have an excellent achievement record and that 30 per cent. are good and improving? Does he agree that all those achievements will be seriously at risk should we ever have in government a party such as the Labour party, which is hostile to grant-maintained schools and would introduce political control, remove schools' right to manage and spoil children's life chances?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. As it refers to standards, Madam Speaker, I trust that you will allow me to correct a statement made from the Dispatch Box during the previous Education and Employment questions. It specifically referred to the believed fact that Westminster had the highest proportion of pupils achieving five or more grade A to C GCSE results in inner London. While Westminster has good results—better than many local authorities in inner London—I can confirm that Camden has the best results.

My hon. Friend is right in every material particular. The important thing to note is the threat the Labour party poses to grant-maintained schools, notwithstanding the fact that a number of Labour Members choose those self-same schools for their own children.

Does the Minister agree that one of the main contributions to raising standards in schools comes from the example set by the brilliant pupil who sets the pace and the standard throughout the school? Does he agree that it is a terrible loss to such a school when pacemakers are turned out to go somewhere else? Why have the Government never examined the effect on schools that have been deserted when bright students leave to take up assisted places? When will the Government have an inquiry into that? They have all sorts of figures on assisted places, but they have never examined the damage done to schools, often in the least prosperous areas, when the brightest pupils are plucked from them and put into other schools.

I lost the hon. Gentleman a little when he reached his pacemaker, but I think I understand what he is saying. The best response is the truth that the Government believe that schools should reach for the best in every child, regardless of his or her ability. A few schools have too often used as an excuse for their poor performance matters such as the nature of their intake. That must not be an excuse.

On the wider issue of exemplars, the hon. Gentleman may be interested in some recent research which shows that, in areas such as Salisbury and south Birmingham, which have a significant number of selective schools, there is higher performance among the comprehensive schools than the national average and an improvement in recent years which beats the national improvement.

Given the fact that many parents and teachers are increasingly worried about discipline in the nation's schools, a point borne out by the recent Association of Teachers and Lecturers' survey, what action is being taken in teacher training colleges to emphasise the need to teach and instil discipline in the classroom?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight an anxiety that every opinion poll that I have seen shows is shared by parents throughout the country. It is important that teachers, whether they are teaching or coming out of training college, should have the ability to maintain order. As my hon. Friend is aware, we intend to legislate this autumn—assuming that there is opportunity—further to strengthen the powers of teachers in that respect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds she plans to make available over the next three years to set up grammar schools. [37280]

My right hon. Friend will approve proposals for new schools—including new grammar schools—where they are needed.

I see that the Minister is offering no money even for this policy, in which she obviously believes. Does she believe that this policy is among those that have led to my selected Conservative opponent in Morley and Rothwell standing down and resigning because, he says, of the arrogance of the approach of some senior Tories?

There are three excellent comprehensive schools in Morley, to which parents are anxious to send their children. Does the Minister realise that, if a grammar school for Morley or south Leeds were created from one of those schools, fewer parents would get the school of first choice?

As usual, the Labour party has got the wrong end of the stick. We are not about forcing grammar schools on communities that do not want them. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman re-read the White Paper. If he does, he will see that the Conservative party is offering choice to communities—they may choose whether they want a grammar school in their town—unlike the Labour party, which is reported in the Daily Mail last week as

"itching to axe the grammars".

That is the Labour party's true agenda. Not satisfied with forcing direct grant grammar schools into the independent sector, it now wants to remove grammar schools throughout the country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a well-run modern selective system such as the one that we have in Buckinghamshire, standards are being driven higher in the grammar schools and in the upper schools which, in the case of some in Buckinghamshire, are achieving results as good as or better than those of comprehensive schools in neighbouring local authorities? Does she agree that that is a tribute to the staff and governors of Buckinghamshire's schools and to the support that they have consistently had from the Buckinghamshire local education authority—in the teeth of hostility from representatives of both Opposition parties?

My hon. Friend and I share that local education authority, so I have no hesitation in endorsing his comments. The schools in Buckinghamshire are an excellent tribute to grammar schools and comprehensive schools. The grammar schools are not bad for other schools. We studied the GCSE results in two areas—Salisbury and south Birmingham—where grammar schools and non-selective schools co-exist. In both areas, the proportion of pupils in the non-selective schools who achieved GCSE grades A to C rose significantly faster than the national average. Grammar schools are good for us.

Can the Minister explain how a return to a grammar school system will enhance parental choice when selection, by its nature, takes powers from parents and gives them to individual schools? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, who told a delegation of head teachers recently that she personally did not want to see a return to the waste of talent inherent in a form of selection at 11? Do the Government still propose to have a grammar school in every town? If so, how much would that cost and how many secondary modern schools would be created as a result? Is it not time that the Government put all our children's interests first instead of allowing political dogma to triumph over reason?

This party always puts the education of children first, as do many members of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman should read the proposals in the White Paper, which would make it easier to set up grammar schools wherever parents want them. The key to our proposals is choice and diversity, whereas the Opposition would remove choice. They would remove grammar schools and assisted places. They would go on to remove other forms of choice too, because their idea of education is to level everybody down whereas ours is to raise standards of education for all.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment she has made of the diversity of education provision between different local education authorities. [37282]

There are grammar, specialist and grant-maintained schools in many parts of England, but their distribution is patchy. In many places, a generalist LEA comprehensive is the only choice of secondary school. The proposals in last month's White Paper will give schools more freedom to develop distinctive strengths, offering more choice for parents.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one factor that determines different levels of education provision is the amount of money held back by each education authority to pay for its central services? Is he aware that Derbyshire holds back £642 per pupil whereas neighbouring Staffordshire holds back just £487? Does he agree that the easiest way for Derbyshire to make more money available for its schools is to cut its central services to the level of neighbouring Labour-controlled Staffordshire and make available an extra £155 per pupil straight away?

My hon. Friend is on to a good point. There can be no obvious justification for the wide disparity between the proportions of budgets delegated, which is why the issue was raised in the recent White Paper with a commitment to raise it to 95 per cent. of a school's potential budget. On the basis of that budget and the latest figures that I have, Staffordshire emerges as a markedly higher delegator than Derbyshire.

Is the Minister aware that central funding for Derbyshire is so bad that the schools are in crisis? Louise Orrill, aged nine, points out that, in her class, the teacher no longer has a desk and 40 children are crammed into a classroom built for 25. Is not that disgraceful? Does not it have a serious impact not only on education but on children's safety?

It is disgraceful that some local authorities are so inefficient that they spend disproportionate sums at the centre, denying that money to schools. The decision to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter resolved by governors on the basis of the funding available to them. It is not a decision that the Government should take, but the Government and schools would be assisted if some local authorities were more efficient.

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the education provision for statemented children in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon? Is it the Government's policy to fund statementing directly? Will he confirm that that is happening in grant-maintained schools in Hillingdon?

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in raising his concerns about the current situation in Hillingdon and the possible threat to the funding of statementing from that authority. As he knows, we are looking into the matter. I can confirm that, under the law, Hillingdon and all LEAs must meet the cost of statementing. It is essential that schools have adequate resources to meet those demands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for further developing the access initiative to improve access for disabled children to mainstream schools. [37284]

Some 800 mainstream schools will benefit from the schools access initiative projects in 1996–97 to improve access to the curriculum for disabled pupils.

While I welcome the £45,000 that was allocated to Dudley metropolitan borough council on a one-off basis this financial year, if that funding is not repeated in future, the parents of children with physical disabilities will view it as tokenism and a cheap pre-election bribe. What will the Government do to ensure that all children with physical disabilities gain access to their local mainstream schools?

I would not seek to make political mileage out of the issue, but the funding demonstrates the Government's commitment to integrating pupils with special needs into mainstream schools wherever that is feasible. We shall look at the expenditure for 1997–98 soon, and we shall take a decision about whether to extend the initiative based on what we have learnt from the 1996–97 bidding round. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman had the decency to acknowledge Dudley's successful bid, which enabled four schools to improve access for the disabled.