To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on (a) the gross cost of reducing to under 30 the class sizes of five, six and seven-year-olds and (b) the date by which this will be achieved. [4088]

Our policy is to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds to 30 or below by the end of this Parliament. The gross cost will be less than the savings made from phasing out the assisted places scheme.

I am grateful for that reply, but the Institute of Public Finance, whose research is based on the Department's figures, showed that the net cost of reducing class sizes to under 30, even taking into account the savings from the assisted places scheme, is £225 million over five years, which means an annual deficit of £45 million. Where will that money come from? Will it make the black hole in the Government's finances even bigger? It is time that Opposition Members started referring to it as a red hole because the Government are seriously in debt and they will get deeper in debt.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a cost of £45 million a year, according to that independent survey. For his information, by the turn of the century £100 million will have been saved from the assisted places scheme and annually thereafter the savings will be in excess of £100 million a year. That is adequate funding to honour our pledge to reduce class sizes. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in the Hampshire local education authority which covers his constituency, there are fewer than 1,300 assisted places whereas 17,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are in classes of more than 30. The hon. Gentleman may defend the privileges of the few; the Labour party will defend the interests of the many.

My hon. Friend will know that he has the enthusiastic support of all Labour Members and the whole of the education world for reducing class sizes—the quicker the better. Does he agree that the quality of teaching is equally important if we are to raise standards? He will be aware of the widespread demoralisation in the classroom because of the 18 years of continual denigration by the Conservative party. What will he do to engage the commitment of teachers in raising the quality of, and standards in, education?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The reduction in class sizes must be coupled with high-quality teaching if we are to achieve our ambitious target to raise standards in all schools for all children. We shall shortly publish a White Paper outlining how we intend to raise standards in schools. One of the main elements of the White Paper will be some positive proposals showing how the Government value the teaching profession. We shall take steps to ensure that the profession is valued and that it encourages new entrants and offers high-quality teaching to deliver our commitment to raise standards.

Does the Minister still assert that a minimal cost will be attached to accommodating the additional 38,000 children who would have had assisted places by insisting that their parents put them into schools with surplus capacity, many of which will be sink schools? Is that the Government's policy? Is that where those children will go?

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and congratulate her on her appointment.

The Government believe that classes of more than 30 pupils become not so much a valuable learning experience as a question of crowd control. We are no longer prepared to tolerate that situation. There is a rich irony in the question posed by Conservative Members. Today we published new figures showing that, in primary schools, one in three young people are in a class of more than 30 pupils. That is an increase of 85,000 children on last year's figures. We have signalled our intention to reduce class sizes. Phasing out the assisted places scheme will do that by providing the resources to ensure that we can deliver our manifesto pledge.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency alone, at least 3,500 five, six and seven-year-olds are being taught in classes of more than 30, and some in classes of more than 40? Is he also aware that that is a disgraceful legacy of 18 years of Conservative government? My hon. Friend's commitment to phase out the assisted places scheme and to reduce class sizes is very welcome. Can he tell us when that process will begin?

The money will start being freed up from September next year, as we phase out the assisted places scheme. As soon as possible, we will use those resources to reduce class sizes in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country. That is one of the key pledges that the Labour party gave during the general election campaign, and it was one of the reasons for our overwhelming victory on 1 May. We give notice that overcrowded classes will come to an end, because we will honour the pledge that we gave to the British people.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the employment prospects for unskilled manual workers over the coming three years; and if he will make a statement. [4091]

Our intention, through our welfare-to-work policies, is to improve the job prospects of unskilled people by enhancing their skills and employability. That is essential if we are to create an economy with high and stable levels of employment, in which all have the opportunity to prosper.

Does the Minister recall that in a previous existence, he said that it was businesses, not Governments, that created jobs? I welcome any scheme that will improve job prospects, but what will happen after the first year, when the money runs out? Will the Minister introduce a one-off windfall tax every year, or will he throw the people on the schemes out of work?

It is indeed businesses that create jobs, and Governments who create the conditions in which businesses can create jobs. We are determined that the role of this Government should be to encourage and enable businesses to create good-quality jobs. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our costings for the new deal are well considered, and that the programme will be carried through the life of this Parliament. It will give young people the opportunity that they should have to develop their skills and employability, so that we can enhance the capacity of our economy to generate wealth and to provide security and employment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Britain has the highest level of unemployment among young males, and that in my constituency, where there are no more jobs left in coal or steel, that is a pressing problem? In the planning that he and his colleagues are putting into effect for the windfall tax, will he undertake to consider particularly the problem of young men, so that the lost generation, condemned under the Tories, can have some hope under the new Government?

I fully understand and sympathise with what my hon. Friend says. His constituency has been through extraordinary adversity, as has the constituency that I represent, which is also an important steel-making part of Britain. Our new deal will offer better opportunities for those who are long-term unemployed—beyond two years—and for the young people whom my hon. Friend mentioned, so that we will be able to provide for them good-quality placements with employers, which will include an important dimension of education and training opportunities to enable them to enhance their skills and to be better placed for the future.

I welcome the Minister on his return to the Department where we both served in different capacities. Given that youth unemployment has been falling for the past five years at a steady rate of 100,000 per annum, can he tell the House how much extra will be contributed by the welfare-to-work scheme? What mechanism will he set up to differentiate between the improvements that he seeks and claims and the improvements that are already taking place because of the buoyancy of the economy that he inherited?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Yes, the whirligig of time produces unpredictable effects.

While we must be pleased that unemployment has fallen from its worst levels, the reality is that one in five households have no one of working age in employment. The social security bill has doubled in real terms since 1979. We face very grave problems, and unemployment remains shamefully high. We must act now. The new deal involves a strategy on a far larger scale than anything we have seen before. It will offer a choice of quality options and preparation, through a gateway, to ensure that people are counselled and steered towards the best opportunities for them. Employers have already made a very enthusiastic commitment to the strategy. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome this serious strategy to address the problems that remain even after the improvements that we have seen.

I welcome the Government's initiative in persuading business leaders to begin to commit to participating in the welfare-to-work programme. What steps will the Government take to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and throughout the country have an opportunity to participate as well?

It is important to build upon the very encouraging response that we received yesterday from senior people in Britain's top companies. They committed themselves—I think without hesitation—to supporting the Government and the strategy that we are unfolding.

Of course, we must reach out beyond the people with whom we were engaged in dialogue yesterday. I am pleased to confirm that representatives of prominent small business organisations were also present. We shall organise a series of regional conferences, and we intend to exchange views through constructive dialogue with employers across the country.

Is there not a contradiction at the heart of the Government's employment policy? The Government seem to believe that the prospects of the young unemployed may be improved by introducing a subsidy of £60 a week to reduce the cost of employing them, while the prospects of other unemployed people may be improved by introducing a minimum wage and increasing the cost of employing them. Which approach does the Minister think is more likely to prove successful?

I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has assumed his new position. We look forward to his constructive and humane contribution to the national debate on these issues. However, his question is not necessarily a notable advance in the debate.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that the most disadvantaged in the labour market—the long-term unemployed, including young people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and people of low and no skills—are left to fester in unemployment. I do not think that he wants that. Equally, I do not suppose that he is really happy to see 100,000 people earning less than £1.50 an hour and 200,000 people earning less than £2 an hour. That is not decent. It is also short-sighted because our employers need to invest in skills and quality; they cannot compete simply on the basis of cheapness.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that good practice in respect of teaching methods is disseminated throughout the education service. [4092]

We have today announced major changes to initial teacher training, based on best practice, intended to ensure that all new teachers know how to teach the basics effectively. These changes are crucial to raising standards across the system and to meeting the new demanding targets that we have set for literacy and numeracy. I shall place details of the new requirements in the Library.

I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, which constitutes a major step in raising standards in education and, more importantly, raising the standards of the profession and teacher morale. However, we must go further and raise standards for 11-year-olds at key stage 2. Does my hon. Friend intend to set targets for children at key stage 2? If so, what will they be and when will they be delivered? The target level attainment by 11-year-olds was appalling under the previous Government, with only 54 per cent. reaching the expected levels in mathematics and 57 per cent. in English.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who recognises the need to raise morale and skill and knowledge levels for new teachers who are going into the profession. The targets that we have set for both literacy and numeracy for key stage 2 are at the centre of the rest of our education policies. By 2002, we expect 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds to reach the standards expected of their age in mathematics, and in English, 80 per cent. They are demanding targets—I think that they can be reached—that will lift ambition. If we cannot do that for our 11-year-olds and equip them to have access to the curriculum in the secondary school, we have no right to be in government and to say that we are running an education system.

These are targets that we all live and die by. Part of the problem with the previous Government was that they set targets for others. They were never prepared to take responsibility themselves. The present Government are prepared to stand behind their targets and play their part in ensuring that our children get the best, because that is what they deserve.

We welcome any attempt by the Government to raise education standards, but is the Minister aware that the introduction of sound teaching methods has increased standards at Testwood school, Totton, in my constituency, from an achievement of just 18 per cent. at five grade A to C GSCEs eight years ago to 59 per cent. last year? If she is aware of that, will she please explain why a Minister in her Department has decided to reject the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools, that of the present hon. Member and of his predecessor to grant a sixth form to an outstandingly successful grant-maintained school?

I congratulate the school in the hon. Gentleman's constituency on reaching such good levels of attainment. I ask the hon. Gentleman to pass on my congratulations and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends. He will know that when we consider whether sixth forms should be added to schools, we apply a range of considerations, and that the quality of teaching and learning is only one criterion. The hon. Gentleman will know also that what happens in one school has an effect on others in the locality. Although I am not familiar with the application that he talks about, I am sure that my hon. Friends took into account all the circumstances and the evidence that was put before them.

I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is important to establish and set targets. I hope that she will agree, however, that it is vital that teachers are given the assistance that they need to ensure that pupils reach the targets that are set.

I welcome the Minister's statement on initial teacher training. However, in view of her comments during the passage of the Education Act 1994, does she not now believe that the failed experiment of school-centred initial teacher training should be abandoned? Will she explain on whose authority the chief inspector of schools, Mr. Chris Woodhead, possibly in cahoots with Prince Charles, is promoting school-centred initial teacher training?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the national curriculum for in-service teacher training, which will play its part in raising standards. I remain convinced that we need a combination of sound practice in schools and strong links with institutions of higher education if we are to train people to be effective teachers, and that is how the curriculum will be judged.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to move into work long-term unemployed young people in Wolverhampton who are on welfare. [4093]

In Wolverhampton, as in other parts of the country, under our new deal for young unemployed people between the ages of 18 and 24, we will offer quality opportunities to take jobs, and to gain relevant education, training and work experience.

The Employment Service will work in partnership with the business community, voluntary organisations and other bodies to ensure that the initiative is effective in Wolverhampton and elsewhere.

Is not my right hon. Friend horrified to learn that even the fiddled figures that we put up with under the Conservatives show that 43 per cent. of young people in Wolverhampton have been unemployed for more than three months, and more than 20 per cent. have been unemployed for a year or longer? Does he agree that Conservative policies led to unsustainably high interest rates, which choked off the job-creating investment required in the west midlands and elsewhere that would have put an end to that problem? We should have been enjoying a boom in jobs for young people.

My hon. Friend is right to be shocked at the level of unemployment in his constituency, which means suffering for individuals. There is a corrosive effect on the whole community of having a workless class disconnected from mainstream opportunities. That is why we need the programmes in the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, and why we need the wider policies for macro-economic stability as a platform for economic success and expansion, which our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out in the Budget.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will pay the jobseeker's allowance to all those people unemployed and seeking work, according to the labour force survey definition. [4094]

No. The jobseeker's allowance is payable to people who meet certain conditions that are set down in law—the right hon. Gentleman had a part in that. Some of the people who are classified as unemployed under the labour force survey definition would not meet those conditions.

Will the Minister give the House an undertaking that, should there be a review of the methodology for calculating and publishing the unemployment figures, whatever the result of that review, full benefit will be paid through the jobseeker's allowance to everyone who is declared to be unemployed?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a review is being carried out by the Office for National Statistics. I thought that there was agreement by the Opposition as well as by the Government that it should pay more attention to the labour force survey. I trust that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that benefits should go to those who need them most.

May I suggest that my right hon. Friend ignores any advice from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who, when he had this responsibility, participated in the 23 fiddles to reduce the claimant count? When he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, he was 100 per cent. opposed to using the labour force survey to determine how many people were looking for work.

My hon. Friend is entirely right to contrast the Government's consistency with the Opposition's inconsistency. The important thing about the review is that it is conducted at arm's length from government, so that we re-establish public confidence in the credibility and trustworthiness of official statistics. The statistics will not be politically manipulated by us as they were by the previous Government.

ay I take the Minister up on his use of the word "consistency"? To help in his quest for funds for unemployment, has he made any representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the privatisation of air traffic control?

I am not sure how that matter falls within the definition of "official statistics". We have been consistent on that, as on all the other matters in our election manifesto. Unlike Conservative Members, when we promise a fair and impartial review of official statistics that is conducted at arm's length from government, we deliver our promise, whereas the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends broke theirs.

If the Conservatives fiddled the unemployment figures, why does not the Minister simply reverse the changes that they made?

Because it is important to re-establish public confidence in the statistics and methodology. That must not be done on a party political basis. We must decide together and try to find a consensus on the statistics that can command public confidence. That is what we need, not just for the purposes of the Government but for wider use by the economic community and the public.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to move young unemployed people on welfare into work. [4095]

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the Government's plans to assist the young unemployed. [4103]

I refer my hon. Friends to the reply given earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) by the Minister for Employment and Disability Rights.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be glad to know that there are already projects in operation and plans in the pipeline in the Rotherham area which offer real training and job prospects to the young and the long-term unemployed. How do the Government plan to draw on such experience, good practice and ideas as they draw up the precise details of the new deal programme?

I am delighted to hear that action is already being taken in my hon. Friend's constituency to prepare for the announcement to be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Wednesday, and for the subsequent programme in which we shall engage.

The record of attainment of those born in my hon. Friend's constituency has been considerable. The Leader of the Opposition greatly benefited there from past practice of investing in education and employability. Our task will be to ensure that all children in the constituency and across the country enjoy quality programmes and quality education backed up by quality training. That will give them a real chance to earn their own living and lift themselves out of dependence on the state.

Is the Secretary of State aware that my constituency has the second highest unemployment rate in the country. with recorded male unemployment reaching 26.7 per cent. and nearly a third of the unemployment in Riverside being among young people? Can he confirm that, in effecting a good programme of opportunities, jobs and skills, the new deal will work with the many examples of community and co-operative enterprise that are already operating successfully in Liverpool, Riverside along with the private sector?

I recognise the enormous problems that affect my hon. Friend's constituency. Our programme must tackle not just the quality of the offers and choices being made but the lack of hope and the desperation which generational unemployment has brought to my hon. Friend's area and many others. That is why our programme will prepare young people by giving them education, social skills and real opportunities. It will build on the initiatives of community and voluntary groups by drawing together such programmes and enfranchising such agreements locally. In that way we can build on the best already in existence and invest in the future of the young people who were written off by the previous Government.

Apart from munching a croissant and drinking his coffee at the breakfast meeting at No. 11 Downing street, did the right hon. Gentleman have time to listen to any of the guests? If not, will he consult the speech by Sir Ian Prosser, chairman of Bass, in which he made it quite clear that labour market flexibility and low non-wage labour costs meant that we had better employment figures than the rest of Europe? By contrast, the right hon. Gentleman's policies will choke off people's ability to take on employees. They could end up subsidising them under the welfare-to-work scheme, which will lead to folly and substitution.

I am sure that the right hon. Lady knows more about croissants than I do. Unfortunately, although I was there on time I did not manage to get one. It just goes to show how much I am likely to get out of No. 11 in future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I was just testing whether Conservative Members were still awake.

The right hon. Lady will of course be aware that the level of unemployment among young people in Germany is lower than it is in the United Kingdom. It is lower because of Germany's investment in skills and training—its vocational investment—through which people can take up apprenticeships and opportunity. That is why, at the business breakfast, the employers present, small as well as large, have overwhelmingly committed themselves to joining us in partnership. In return, we said that we would listen to their concerns and join them in ensuring that the programmes that we set forward have universal support, so that we can build a consensus to rid ourselves of hopelessness and end the exclusion of a whole generation of people. Given the right hon. Lady's background and her commitment in the past to overcoming poverty, I expect her to join us in that endeavour.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that unemployment among young people is falling strongly and has fallen by 400,000 in the past four years? How much better than that does he expect to do in the next four years?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position.

I want the target to be to reduce unemployment among people under 25 to the same level as that among adult workers—rather than its being double or treble that level—so that we ensure that young people become accustomed to being at work in the morning and to being able to earn their own living, rather than depending on others. Any civilised society will be judged by what it does to give young people a real drive to enterprise and the ability to earn their living in a civilised fashion.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous progress that he has made in a mere eight weeks, even without breakfast, as compared with the disastrous 18 years that preceded them. As part of the welfare-to-work programme, is he considering using some of the resources to expand child care facilities, particularly for mothers and lone parents who want to work but cannot because they do not have access to affordable child care?

We as a Department, with the Ministry for women, will ensure that we co-ordinate education, child care and family learning. It is critical that those who enter full-time education and training in particular have facilities that enable them to take up that option. Above all, it is critical that they are able, during the programme and afterwards, to earn a living like other families, and that the widest possible choice of under-fives facilities is available.

I welcome the Government's commitment to assist employers to take on young unemployed—and perhaps some long-term unemployed—persons, but does the Secretary of State agree that, when there has been subsidy, some unscrupulous employers have exploited it and, instead of creating full-time posts, have continued to take on subsidised employees? Will he monitor the scheme closely to ensure that there is no abuse?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is always a danger in such circumstances. Employers and the Employment Service agree that they should assist us in monitoring the situation. Obviously, as Winston Churchill once pointed out, if the worst employer is undercut by the very worst, no one gains.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his plans to increase investment in training. [4096]

Our proposals for increasing participation in training by individuals and employers will be set out in a White Paper on lifelong learning in the autumn.

While I welcome any initiative that improves the general level of skills and education, does the Minister agree that many skills shortages are created by the relatively high cost of skills training in certain sectors, such as engineering? Will he commit the Government to ensuring that priority funding goes into the sectors where there are skills shortages to ensure that British industry as a whole does not feel that the Government are, let us say, tilting at windfalls?

Well, I do not know whether there are any national vocational qualifications in windmill construction, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we have to be imaginative in trying to procure for training purposes the very best state-of-the art machinery, especially in engineering, science and similar disciplines. It is very worrying that, all too often, further education colleges, universities and other institutions tend to go for the softer options—the cheaper courses—rather than concentrate on those that require a good deal of expensive machinery.

Does my hon. Friend think that training and enterprise councils are sufficiently accountable, locally and nationally, for the training that they deliver in view of the investment in them? Should not more be done to make them more accountable?

There is no doubt that the performance of TECs is extremely patchy. The Government are determined to introduce performance standards that can be monitored, that TECs should be much more accountable, and that they should co-ordinate their activities much more closely with FE colleges, local authorities and universities in their area. That is how they can maximise their input into their regional economies.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is good for the morale of a profession to have its training prescribed by politicians without relevant professional qualifications? If so, can we look forward to statements from the Secretary of State for Health on how doctors might be trained to perform operations or from the Secretary of State for Transport on how to drive a train?

No.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the funding of non-vocational education. [4097]

No representations have been received specifically on this topic. My right hon. Friend recently announced the formation of a national advisory group on adult learning to advise on all issues of adult learning, including funding.

Did not the previous Government create a dangerous divide between the funding of non-vocational and vocational education which often led to non-vocational education being priced out of the market? I spent 21 years in adult education and always thought that there was a clear connection between vocational and non-vocational education—[Interruption.] Some hon. Members would benefit from my teaching. Are the Government going to tackle the problem created by the previous Government?

The division of responsibility between the Further Education Funding Council and local education authorities for securing adequate further education stems from the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The FEFC is responsible for securing adequate provision of those courses described—I have to be careful here—in the Act under schedule 2 as having national significance, such as basic skills courses, access courses and those which lead to academic or vocational qualifications. Local education authorities have been made responsible for all other kinds of courses, including those called recreational or of a leisure nature.

If my hon. Friend examines the record of Tuesday night's Adjournment debate, he will see that unless we clear up the ambiguities in what constitutes a schedule 2 and a non-schedule 2 course, we shall be in big trouble with funding. In that debate, hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned a number of enterprises that are owed a great deal of money by the FEFC and colleges that have contracted with them. There is ambiguity about whether their courses are schedule 2 courses. The Government will resolve that problem.

Will the Minister take note of early-day motion 166 which refers particularly to the funding of colleges? Is he aware of the parliamentary answer I received to the effect that the allocation of funding to colleges and courses is a matter for the colleges to decide? My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) mentioned engineering training. How are colleges to pay for such expensive courses in the light of the Minister's previous answers?

The funding of further education colleges is the responsibility of the FEFC, which is closely monitored by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The colleges have to make a case for increased funding. If they cannot, they do not receive increased funding. If they show that they have a good intake of students who will be studying courses that will lead to accreditation in technical and scientific subjects, money will be made available, but the colleges have to prove that first and they must have good courses that are properly inspected and delivered.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans his Department has to ensure co-ordination between early-years education and child care. [4098]

With other Ministers, the Department has asked local authorities to draw together early-years forums to establish interim early-years development plans and to have programmes in place by next April for the co-ordination of nursery education and child care. That builds on our commitment to early excellence centres, ensuring that from the time a child is born, developmental skills, including the learning process, are encouraged as much as possible. I am delighted that more than 80 local authorities have already responded, showing their commitment and enthusiasm for early-years development plans. I am sorry that my hon. Friend's county council-Essex—is not one of them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that, after years of neglect, when Essex county council was under Conservative control, and despite the attempts of the new Liberal Democrat-Labour administration, we still have one of the lowest levels of nursery education and pre-school provision in the country? Will he encourage Essex county council to take those comments on board and to work with the providers of pre-school education in my constituency, who are keen for our policies to be put into practice?

I certainly shall. During its four years in office, the Liberal Democrat-Labour coalition began the process of trying to reverse the worst record in Britain, with only three nursery education providers operating in the state sector under the previous Tory regime. That was a scandalous record.

It will take us a little time to ensure that coverage is available across the country, but we have made clear our commitment to ending the voucher scheme from the end of this term and to providing free places for all four-year-olds. Working with the voluntary sector and others who are committed to providing places, we shall ensure that that essential pledge is carried out in the next 12 months.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable anxiety that has been caused among providers of pre-school education and parents by his decision to abolish the nursery voucher scheme before putting proper alternative arrangements in place? Will he clarify the criteria under which local authorities will be able to reduce the amount that is reimbursed to providers in the voluntary and private sectors—a move that many fear will lead only to a reduction in the provision of pre-school education?

I have no evidence of that and I have received no letters from the hon. Lady's constituents in Maidenhead saying that they feel threatened. We have made it clear that existing places that are carried forward into the autumn term will be honoured. We have set in place mechanisms to ensure that, where there is doubt, a certificate will be issued to that effect. There is no threat to anyone currently providing a place. They will not receive less for that place than they received from the public purse under the voucher scheme. We have encouraged local authorities of all persuasions to work with providers so that there is a collaborative, joint approach rather than the competitive market that closed private and voluntary providers in the pilot scheme areas and, after 1 April, in other areas when the voucher scheme came into operation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to help those pupils leaving primary school this summer who have fallen behind in their reading. [4099]

The Government launched a pilot of 29 literacy summer schools on 3 June for pupils leaving primary school this summer who have not reached level four in their national curriculum tests. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an expansion to the literacy summer schools to cover 50 schools and some 1,600 pupils.

I am sure that many hon. Members share my experience; time and again constituents visit my surgery with problems that have become far worse because they cannot read and write and therefore cannot understand the letters they receive from the local council, the Department of Social Security and, especially, the privatised utilities. That is the result of the previous Government's education policy, which turned out illiterate and semi-literate pupils from primary schools who had little chance of succeeding at secondary school. May I compliment my hon. Friend on the welcome and imaginative scheme he has just announced, which will go a long way towards achieving the Government's target of ensuring that, by 2002, 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds leaving primary school reach their proper reading age?

The literacy summer schools are an exciting initiative. They are part of a pilot scheme which we hope to expand in future years to cover thousands of young people and hundreds of schools. We recognise that a person's future will be blighted for ever if they cannot read. It is a fundamental issue that has to be tackled. We intend to do so.

I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman's announcement, but he needs to use some cavalry dash. It is plain that the scheme will be a success, so why does he not expand it straight away? It does not need a pilot and should be implemented immediately on a much greater scale.

It is rather ironic that the hon. Gentleman should make that comment when the Government of which he was a member had only one programme for literacy—the reading recovery programme—which was scrapped two years ago. We have been in office for two months. The pilot programmes are exciting and we intend to expand them in future years. I hope that, in due course, we may be able to initiate one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to move young unemployed people into training. [4100]

The Government have a wide range of proposals to involve young people in quality training. We shall take them forward on a firm basis of consultation and partnership.

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which I am sure will be welcome to my constituents in Blackpool who have been relentlessly affected by high unemployment, particularly in the youth sector. Seasonal unemployment, particularly in coastal and seaside towns, remains an important issue. Many of my constituents, particularly women in low-paid jobs, have problems in that respect. What specific plans and assurances can he offer to take into account seasonal unemployment when training programmes are put into effect?

I am well aware of the special problems that arise from the seasonal nature of many employment opportunities in seaside and tourism centres such as my hon. Friend's constituency. I am also aware that young people there have the lowest staying-on rate in the west Lancashire area and that there is high unemployment among 16 and 17-year-olds. My hon. Friend will know that the Government have pledged themselves to a range of measures, included in Target 2000, to get all 16 and 17-year-olds on the road to a proper qualification. We plan to replace the failed youth training programme with high-quality training and we will give under-18s in work the right to study for an approved qualification. Combined with a concerted drive to attract new employment to west Lancashire, we believe that we can make real inroads into addressing youth unemployment.

The Government make a great deal of their welfare-to-work proposals. They have also made it absolutely clear that those proposals will be paid for by the so-called windfall levy. How will the schemes be funded when the windfall is exhausted?

I thought that that was obvious. The windfall levy will help to perform the trick that the previous Government, whom we displaced recently, could not perform—getting people back to work so that they start paying taxes and the unemployment rate and the benefits bill fall. That is how we will achieve our targets.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce his decision concerning the current round of bids for technology college status. [4102]

I announced the names of the 16 successful schools on 18 June.

Will my hon. Friend give favourable consideration to the application by Southlands school, when it is resubmitted? Will she accept that the school has the support of good business interests and fine financial support from the whole community? In the next round, favourable consideration will be important for Southlands, and for Gable Hall school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith).

I am glad that, from what my hon. Friend says, Southlands school intends to rebid for technology status in the next round. Many good schools put in good-quality bids, but were not awarded technology or other specialist status this year. My hon. Friend will know that we are about to announce new criteria for technology status that will mean that the benefits can be shared with other schools and the community. I hope that such co-operation will be reflected in the new bid from Southlands school.

Will the Minister tell me precisely why she refused the application by the Robert Smyth school in my constituency for technology status? Her letter to me did not do so.

As I have just said, we received far more applications for specialist status than we had resources to allocate. Some of the applications were very good and schools should not think that they have failed. I hope that they will be encouraged to try again and that the hon. and learned Gentleman will encourage the school in his constituency. If the school that he mentions would like feedback on its application, perhaps we may talk outside the Chamber to ensure that it has the support to make an even better bid next time.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for improving job security; and if he will make a statement. [4104]

The best form of job security is knowing one can get another job if one has to. That is why we aim to deliver a successful economy with high and sustainable levels of employment and skilled and employable workers.

Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—that one of the spin-offs of privatisation is that many people no longer qualify for protection from unfair dismissal, for holiday and sickness pay, or for other benefits that we used quaintly to associate with civilisation? Do we have any plans to return to the circumstances of the early 1980s, when more people qualified for such benefits?

We are committed to basic human rights in the workplace—unlike the Conservatives. Many of us have been saddened and shocked by instances in our constituencies of bad employers abusing the deregulation introduced by the Conservatives and sacking employees before they attained employment rights. Those practices are ethically unacceptable and feckless. Employers should invest in the skills and loyalty of their work force.

Does the Minister accept that the introduction of schemes to subsidise employment for the long-term young unemployed will create a displacement effect? Will not that increase job insecurity for others?

We do not contend that job subsidy schemes are likely to generate many new jobs; we believe that they will enhance the employability of many people in our work force and that that will strengthen Britain's competitive capacity.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware that people who are recovering from mental illness often have great difficulty obtaining employment. Will such people be able to benefit from the Government's welfare-to-work programme so that they can enjoy job security?

We are concerned that, in the development of our welfare-to-work policies, attention is given to the needs of disabled people, including those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from mental illness.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review his Department's spending priorities on young people's education. [4105]

My right hon. Friend intends to review all aspects of his Department's spending priorities, including those in relation to young people's education, as part of his review of the Department's spending plans, according to the arrangements announced to the House on 11 June by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the information about the nature of the review. As he is considering the future use of resources, may I draw his attention to the excellent Office for Standards in Education report on the Pear Tree school in my constituency, which deals with children with severe learning difficulties? May I seek his assurance that the review will address the deployment of resources in connection with the difficulties that the school has, after all the work that it has put in on its pupils, finding them appropriate training, jobs or other arrangements after their education is concluded?

I know of the special interest that the right hon. Gentleman takes in the excellent special needs teaching at the Pear Tree school and the tremendous results achieved there. We consider such matters a great priority and will certainly address them in the review that we are shortly to undertake. The results will be incorporated in the lifelong learning White Paper in the autumn.