How many teachers have been recruited by schools as a result of teach first. [128968]

What assessment he has made of the number of teachers recruited by schools as a result of teach first [128971]

One hundred and seventy-eight trainees on the teach first scheme began working in London secondary schools last week. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in wishing them well.

My constituency encompasses people from a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. May I ask the Minister how successful the scheme has been in attracting teachers from minority groups? Will he tell me how he intends to utilise the national skills strategy to address the imbalance between the skills offered by unemployed Londoners and those that are needed by employers?

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As we heard in the education debate earlier this week, we face a challenge in ensuring that our classrooms truly reflect the communities that they serve. I am delighted to be able to inform my hon. Friend that 22 per cent. of teach first students entering classrooms in London over the past fortnight were from ethnic minorities. That sets a very positive example.

Teach first is an interesting initiative that has potential in many respects. Does the Minister plan to roll it out in other parts of the country after the monitoring that must, of course, take place?

I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. This is a brand new scheme, which started in London because of the particular challenges that it faces with recruitment and retention. We will evaluate the scheme closely, as will those who organised it and the Teacher Training Agency. I certainly would not rule out its extension to other parts of the country.

May I echo the Minister's delight that teach first is recruiting high-calibre teachers? We have supported the scheme since its launch and will continue to do so. Will the hon. Gentleman reciprocally acknowledge that the numbers recruited through teach first are just a palliative, given that this week the Department issued figures showing that the number of qualified regular full-time teachers is down by 1,400 this year? Will he acknowledge that his Government's constant boasting about rising teacher numbers is bogus?

I welcome the support for teach first from Opposition Members, including the Liberal Democrats.

The hon. Gentleman refers only to part of the figures that were published this week. He is correct to say that the figure for full-time qualified teachers fell by 1,300 over the past year. However, that was more than offset by the increase in full-time-equivalent part-time qualified teachers. The overall statistic was a net gain of 200 full-time-equivalent teachers over the past year. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join us in welcoming those extra teachers in schools across the country.

I note that it is significant that the Minister does not repeat the bogus number of 25,000 that his colleague, the Minister for School Standards, is fond of repeating. Can he tell the House how many of those teachers are unqualified and how many are short-term appointments from other countries, many of which are poorer than this country, whose schools we are raiding to fill the gaps in our own schools? Does he recognise that the problems have been made much worse by the funding crisis that has led to the loss of 2,500 teaching posts purely because the Department has been staggeringly incompetent in spending its money?

We are not going to take lectures from Conservative Members on this subject, given that they presided over the loss of 50,000 teaching posts between 1979 and 1997. He is right to say that we have significant numbers of teachers from overseas, but they are not unqualified—they are qualified in their own countries. Some 4,200 teachers are on employment-based training routes. In fact, the majority of teachers in schools today are now qualified; many have qualified since January. Part of the reason why so many teachers are on schemes such as the graduate teacher programme is that we are dealing with teacher shortages by providing other routes for people to get into teaching. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome that.

I, too, congratulate the Government on teach first as part of their success in recruiting more teachers. May I ask the Minister, when considering the roll-out and extension of teach first, not to forget our rural areas, including the south-west region?

I heard my hon. Friend's comments and I am sure that South Dorset would benefit from such an extension.

What success is my hon. Friend having in recruiting ESOL—English as a second language—teachers? Given the changes in the requirements for citizenship, we shall need many more good quality ESOL teachers. The subject should not continue to be the poor relation in education; it is important for our northern cities.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in pursuing the matter. She knows that, last academic year, we published our document "Aiming High—Raising the Achievement of Ethnic Minority Pupils", part of which addressed the precise topic to which she referred. We shall shortly publish our response to the consultation and methods of taking forward our strategy to ensure that every child in this country gets the best possible start in life, regardless of ethnic background.

If he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing children's centres. [128970]

What the latest developments are in the establishment of children's centres. [128977]

We designated the first 32 children's centres in June. We intend to designate a further similar number later this month. Local authorities are currently preparing their plans for developing children's centres and will submit them to us by 15 October. We are confident that the children's centre model, which provides care and education for young children alongside community health and family support services, is excellent for ensuring the best start for our children.

I am grateful to the Minister not only for her reply but for the £2.3 million indicative figure for capital programmes that Brent has received for children's centres.

When my hon. Friend examines the submissions, will she ensure that emphasis is placed on the model of multi-agency working? In particular, will she ensure that the incredibly valuable role of health visitors is incorporated in the model so that in the progress from zero to five years the education and health aspects of children's lives are genuinely integrated?

I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's contribution. I draw to his intention the fact that, as well as capital, Brent is getting £1 million revenue to support the development of children's centres.

The multi-agency approach is crucial and an essential part of our policy to put children at the centre and develop services around their needs rather than around the traditional professional silos. I also accept the importance of the role of health visitors and therefore welcome our announcement on Monday in the Green Paper that my colleagues in the Department of Health will undertake a review of the role of health visitors to ensure that they can contribute to giving our young children a good start.

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that is already being done. Can she tell me, on the basis of the centres that have been approved, the extent to which local authorities and other agencies have gone beyond simply integrating existing services and are taking the opportunity to improve the total service for young children and families?

Many exciting experiments are taking place in the emerging children's centres, as well as much innovation. I could give endless examples of the practices that are being introduced. Much work is being done with families to ensure that parents are supported in the early years with their children. I draw the voluntary organisation Home-Start to my hon. Friend's attention. It is doing a good job in providing peer group support, involving mums visiting other mums in their homes to help them through the difficult early days when they bring their child home.

rose—

I call Phil Willis.

I wanted to come in on the next question, Mr. Speaker.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that Question 4 has gone, but perhaps he wants to come in on Question 5.

Yes, I wanted to come in on Question 5.

Unusually, I welcome what the Minister for Children has said. I also welcome the work that has been done on children's centres, because of the help that it will bring to parents of very young children and to families in need of support. But what exactly is the Minister going to do to protect the minority of children who are specifically at risk from criminals who have the intention of harming them? I use the word "criminal" rather than "paedophile" because we must understand that there are criminals who are deliberately targeting young children. While children's centres will help families and children at risk from neglect, they will not help the children at risk from such criminals, and I would like the Minister to give us guidance on that problem.

In the Green Paper that we published on Monday, we said that the way in which we can best protect children from risk of abuse or harm is to ensure that the universal services provided for children are of a particular quality and that the protection of children is central and integral to them. The protection of children must run like a thread through all the services, so that ensuring that children are protected is part of the role of every GP, teacher, nursery assistant and child care worker. Another issue in the Green Paper was that the emphasis must be on prevention. We must try to intervene and to put in place all sorts of levers to ensure that children are prevented from falling into risk of abuse. For example, the sharing of information and the training of the work force—both of which we highlighted in the Green Paper—are two aspects of the policies that we are pursuing to ensure that children are not at risk of abuse or harm.

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the children's centres could be the base on which to build a universal provision of child care? Has she seen this week's PricewaterhouseCoopers study which states that investment in a universal child care system would be an enormous boon to our economy?

My hon. Friend and I have worked together for many years, and he will know that I have long been a campaigner for the universality of early-years services for children, in terms of child care and early-years education. Children's centres have great potential for being a universal model to meet the needs of children and their families, and I look forward to working with colleagues across government to translate that ambition into a reality.

What his policy is on middle schools applying for specialist school status. [128972]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing this issue, and I am pleased to be able to give him further information on the review that we were undertaking when he last asked about it. Middle deemed secondary schools are now eligible to apply for specialist school status as part of a joint application. One or more middle deemed secondary schools can apply jointly to the programme with upper schools.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there are nearly 130,000 children in middle schools in England alone who are unable to be in specialist schools at the moment because of the current guidelines? Is he also aware that two of the three years' work for key stage 3—the crucial foundation for GCSEs—takes place in middle schools? In my constituency, the upper schools already have specialist college status, so the excellent Priory middle school which wants to apply, cannot do so. Will the Minister make a specific pledge on solo applications for middle schools, so that schools such as Priory can acquire specialist status?

I do not know about the 130,000, but I do know about the 40 middle schools in Bedfordshire. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that solo applications would be allowed from middle schools, because they have primary school pupils as well as secondary school pupils, and the specialist school programme is designed to raise achievement at GCSE and beyond. I can assure him, however, that the middle schools that he is concerned about can apply jointly, either for designation or redesignation, with a secondary school or in a group. That is a big step forward.

Mr Wills.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Minister accept that the principal reason for schools wishing to acquire specialist status is the extra £500,000 that that status brings, and that, had it not been for specialist status, the crisis in schools funding this year would be significantly less serious? Will the Minister guarantee to those schools whose budgets are now in deficit as a result of the funding crisis that their applications for specialist status will not be turned down because of the Government's criterion which states that they have to show prudent financial management?

I am afraid that there are two pieces of nonsense in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. First, he is running down the efforts of teachers and head teachers who want to make their schools better. That is why they apply to attain specialist school status and to have a centre of excellence in their school. Secondly, while on the one hand the hon. Gentleman says that the schools are getting too much money, on the other he says that the money is what is causing the funding crisis. He is standing on his head.

What measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the range of specialisms offered by specialist schools correlates with the demands of pupils and parents? Given that the choice of specialism rests with the school itself, is not the approach producer led rather than consumer led?

I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks with seriousness on these issues, but when a school applies for specialist status it does so with the aim not just of raising its own standards but of providing a real resource for the whole community. That involves schools' working with parents and the community to choose a specialism that is appropriate for the area. I have not observed a problem on my visits to schools, although if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of problems, I shall be happy to look at it.

How many school nursery places in Leeds, North-West were available for under-fives in each year since 1997. [128974]

We do not have detailed information on the availability of places, but I can tell the House that the number of pupils attending nursery classes in maintained schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency was as follows: in 1997, 551; in 1998, 588; in 1999, 548; in 2000, 538; in 2001, 514; and in 2002, 499. The provisional figure for 2003 is 475. Other publicly funded places for under-fives are available in the private, voluntary and independent sectors.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although that trend is worthy of note, there may be some room for improvement? Can he say something about further funds that might improve the position?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the trend is worthy of note. Leeds currently reports an overall participation rate of 90 per cent. among three-year-olds in free early education, which is slightly higher than the national average. We should, however, consider the type of participation involved. The starting point must be to ensure that overall provision is flexible, and meets parental needs. The right approach is that described a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Minister for Children—the securing of a range of forms of provision to meet the needs of children and their families.

What representations he has received on the Tomlinson proposals for changes in the examination system for 14 to 19-year-olds. [128975]

The working group will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in July 2004. At this stage, all representations are being made to Mike Tomlinson and the working group, not to my right hon. Friend. I welcome the open and serious way in which the group is addressing the problems involved in 14-to-19 education and training, and we look forward to its next interim report in January.

What does the Minister intend to do about the NVQs and GNVQs examination system? While the Government have been obsessed with targets for so-called university education, they have presided over a rapidly declining vocational system, in which fewer people have been obtaining qualifications and standards of work-based learning have been falling. When will Education Ministers stop meddling with our education system, and support practical education that will lead to good jobs for our young people?

I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady's question. I thought she would know that 28 per cent. of young people are now pursuing modern apprenticeships. That is precisely the sort of education route that she claims is being derided. As for GNVQs and NVQs, I should have thought that the development of a wider range of vocational as well as academic subjects would command support across the House. I am sorry that the hon. Lady decries efforts to deliver that in schools, colleges and workplaces.

As the Minister will know, test and examination results show that when black children enter the school system at the age of five they are doing as well as white and Asian children, but when they are aged between 14 and 19 their exam results collapse. That applies particularly to black boys. It is of great concern both to the black community and to anyone who cares about education in the inner city. The aims and values consultation has been widely welcomed, but what practical steps do Ministers intend to take to narrow the frightening achievement gap between black boys and the rest of the school population?

I genuinely admire the work that the hon. Lady has been doing across London to raise issues such as this, and the way in which she has raised them with my colleagues. She will correct me if I am wrong. but I think it is fair to say that the different minority ethnic groups perform differentially at the 14-to-19 stage. The highest performers are from the Chinese and Indian communities. The collapse in achievement is occurring partly in the Afro-Caribbean community, but also in sections of the white community. Later this term, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), will publish the response to the aims and values consultation that my hon. Friend mentioned. I hope that that will provide a chance for the whole House to engage with these issues in a serious way.

Has the Minister seen the recent research by Hounslow community health council, which shows that by far the greatest health concern for teenagers is stress, one of the main causes of which is constant exam pressure? Does he also understand that one reason why too many students who are not particularly academic simply lose interest at school at the ages of 13 and 14 is that all they can see ahead is a constant stream of exams, to which they know they are not suited? Is not the solution to reduce the number of exams that students face, and to ensure that more is done to support those who need vocational, rather than academic, education?

I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the publications of Hounslow community health council have yet to find their way on to my desk.

Shameful!

Yes—as my colleague says, it is shameful, but I shall ask my office to look into the matter. I hope that, in calling for a reduction in exams, the hon. Gentleman is not joining the Liberal Democrats in calling for the abolition of GCSEs. As for AS-levels, teachers throughout the country and Ofsted—it has also reported on this issue—say that the wider range of subjects now available and being pursued by young people has actually strengthened the system, rather than weakened it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not support that.

Is it not a mistake to polarise the debate as being between either supporting vocational education, or supporting academic education? In the City of York we have some of the best-performing comprehensive schools in the country, of which we are very proud, but a pilot study is also looking at reform of the 14-to-19 system, so that we can meet the needs of the whole population, and not just of those in the academic stream.

That is a very good point. On my visit to York, I saw the work being done by my hon. Friend, and by teachers in schools and colleges in York. Of course it is right that students are able to combine academic and vocational studies. That is precisely the remit that we have given to the Tomlinson group in its attempt to overcome the two great English problems: an academic track that is too narrow, and a vocational track that is too weak. We want to go beyond those two problems.

What recent representations he has received about the future of grammar schools. [128976]

My Department has received various representations, both written and oral, about the future of grammar schools. These representations have reflected all sides of this debate.

It is reported that the future of grammar schools will soon be debated at the Labour party conference. If there is a vote on selection, will the Secretary of State vote for or against?

Actually, I do not want to illuminate the House too much as to Labour party policy making. Labour's policy on education will be determined at next year's party conference—in 2004—not at this year's. There will be a debate, as the hon. Gentleman says, about education, but no decisions will be taken, because decisions on our policy making are subject to long debate. I am glad to shed a little light on how a democratic political party works.

Our grammar schools and other post-primary schools in Northern Ireland provide an excellent educational opportunity for our children; in fact, the results are the envy of many other United Kingdom regions. Can the Secretary of State give me an assurance today that the Government will not impose an education system in Northern Ireland that would conflict with the clearly expressed wishes of the majority of parents and teachers who were surveyed, who wish to retain grammar schools but want an alternative selection procedure?

As luck would have it, I was in Belfast last week, speaking to the Association of Commonwealth Universities. I took the chance to meet the Minister with responsibility for education in Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), to discuss several of these questions. My hon. Friend will reach a decision following lengthy debate—the hon. Gentleman will know about the recommendations of the commissions that have considered the issues—and I am not in a position today to give any assurances on her behalf.

When the Secretary of State is determining Labour party policy at next year's conference, will he invite me to speak at it, so that I can convince the Labour party and its dinosaurs that education in my constituency is a seamless robe of comprehensive schools, specialist schools, grammar schools and the college, and that the benefits of that proper mixture far outweigh any dogma that involves reduction to the lowest common denominator?

I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's dilemma, as I know that many Conservative Back Benchers are trying to flee their party's Front-Bench policies. We have a rigorous membership process in our party, so I cannot guarantee that if the hon. Gentleman wants to come over and join us he will be accepted. If he decides to go down that course and participate in our debates, it would be a positive political development, which would reflect the reality of Conservative party weakness at the moment.

What estimates he has made of the number of (a) teacher redundancies and (b) classroom assistant redundancies as a result of 2003–04 school funding. [128978]

Every year the Department collects statistics on teacher and support staff numbers in January with publication of the first results in April. This has been a difficult year for some schools, as we debated in the House on Tuesday, and we are working with local education authorities and representatives of head teachers to deliver continued growth in the school work force.

I am grateful for the Minister's answer, but it may conceal more than it reveals. According to The Times Educational Supplement survey published three months after the beginning of the financial year, three quarters of the posts lost in this country have been from schools with rising or static rolls. All hon. Members have received representations about redundancies and I want to ensure that the money gets through to Somerset schools. Does the Minister agree that part of the solution may lie with a top-heavy local education authority in Somerset?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman wants to see the cash getting through to schools, and he will be relieved to know that £1,060 is allotted for every pupil in Somerset—more in this academic year than in 1997–98. Additionally, he should know that there are 3,400 more teachers in Somerset than there were six years ago. The hon. Gentleman mentioned The Times Educational Supplement survey. If he had read to paragraph 9 rather than stopping at paragraph 6, he would have found out that there was a net increase in the number of teachers. He should have read the survey more carefully.

My hon. Friend rightly points out that there are many more teachers. Will he confirm that it remains the Government's priority to improve the teacher-pupil ratio in our schools, which is the main way of achieving a better education for our children?

We in the Labour party fought the last election on a pledge to recruit at least 10,000 extra teachers into our education service and I am pleased to report to the House that, two years on from that election, there are now 13,000 more teachers in our schools.

Is the Minister concerned that one of the strategies that schools follow in order to avoid redundancies in tight budgetary conditions is cutting spending in other areas? According to the Department's own figures, spending on information technology for schools in 2002–03 has fallen. Will the Minister seriously examine the impact on other areas of spend such as IT as well as the headline redundancy figures?

Of course I recognise that it has been a seriously difficult year for some schools. I think there may be some confusion in the recording of figures on IT spending. Of course priorities have to be set at school level, but the hon. Gentleman would want to know that there are 1,600 more teachers in his own region than there were six years ago.

Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to the all-party delegation that he will receive from Hertfordshire next month, which wants to draw to his attention the fact that the budget shortfall in the county this year, stemming from the Government's funding arrangements, will result in the loss of funding equivalent to 70 teachers' posts? Next year, as the cushioning from those funding arrangements begins to disappear, Hertfordshire faces the loss of the equivalent of 600 teacher posts. Will the Minister give sympathetic consideration to that all-party group?

I always give sympathetic consideration to people who come to meet me, so I look forward to that meeting. I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted on threats of teacher redundancies. However, we are committed to working with Hertfordshire and every other local education authority to ensure that we use the money as well as possible to deliver the highest possible standards in Hertfordshire schools and those across the country.

What recent representations he has received on tuition fees. [128980]

My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to tuition fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups in order to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in our White Paper "The Future of Higher Education".

Will the Minister accept a little friendly advice from a former Government Deputy Chief Whip? The tuition fee legislation will end in tears. It is deeply unpopular in the House as well as among students and parents throughout the country. It would be wise to withdraw the legislation, so will the Minister guarantee that that will happen?

Would the right hon. Gentleman—whose attributes as a former Deputy Chief Whip I very much admire—take some advice from me? The Conservative party ought to be wearing sackcloth and ashes over their approach to the future of higher education funding. I cannot for the life of me understand how a serious political party can argue that the answer to the knowledge-driven economy of the 21st century is to contract and to disinvest in university education. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who marched through the Lobby in support of the Dearing report and the principle that graduates should make a contribution—an important principle—should now argue against that principle. We need take no advice from the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will take some from me.

Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, that top-up fees at some institutions and for some courses will deter the brighter students from those institutions and courses? What action will he take to prevent that?

I do not accept that philosophy. I would accept it in isolation from the rest of our proposals, which are the ending of up-front fees, the reintroduction of a maintenance grant, an income-contingent repayment basis, the threshold for the repayment of student loans going up to £15,000—which halves the amount that students will pay—and various other policies to help poorer students. For the first time, our policy will crowbar open higher education for poorer working-class students.

Given that the 2001 Labour election manifesto stated:

"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them",

will the Minister now tell the House in the light of the Government's about-turn, and irrespective of the merits of the arguments, what he thinks that about-turn does for the reputation among the public of politicians for honesty?

Were we to ignore the situation in higher education and the fact that our major competitors—whether in America, China, India or elsewhere—are actively engaged in expanding their higher education and concentrating more on their research, it would be total cowardice by the Government. We will not introduce those proposals until after the next election, and I relish the argument on the doorstep—this is the red meat of politics—against the proposals of Her Majesty's official Opposition for retraction and decline, and for our proposals for expansion and investment.

The Minister may be aware of my letter in The Guardian yesterday, setting out my calculations as to what might happen with top-up fees. How much do the Government estimate will be spent in the financial year 2007–08 on the new £1,000 bursaries? I estimated that one third of students would receive those, costing about £250 million. I should like clarification from the Minister regarding those figures.

I have not read my hon. Friend's letter in The Guardian. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Indeed; I plead guilty to many failings and that is one of them. My hon. Friend's letters are always worth reading. We expect that at least one third of the extra money coming from fees will go to bursaries. We have calculated that around £300 million extra will go to bursaries, along with the other proposals to help poorer students to get to university.

Much of the argument in favour of the Government's proposals has been couched in terms of the need to reinvest in the research base of UK universities. In that context, has the Minister seen the comments this week of Professor Andrew Cubie, the author of the Cubie report, who stated that the proposals would have the opposite effect, creating a gilded circle of universities in the south-east and denuding universities in the rest of the country of the staff, students and resources necessary to compete?

I read those comments from Andrew Cubie, who, incidentally, chaired the Scottish inquiry and rejected all Opposition arguments that graduates should not make a contribution. On the specific issue of research, we believe that with an additional investment of £1.25 billion in research and with the actions of our international competitors, we cannot just carry on with business as usual. We have shifted some £25 million, which is 2 per cent. of the research budget, but I accept the fears and concerns about the return to a binary situation because of those proposals. I am keen to debate the issue and to find a shared analysis, because we all want the same thing. We want excellent research and to ensure that we keep the best academics in this country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that within the past few days several of our senior scientists, including Nobel prize winners, have made representations to the Government about the rapidly declining numbers of students in universities studying science, engineering and technology subjects? Will he consider my feelings and those of many others, who fear that if differentially higher fees for studying those subjects are introduced, it will make matters much worse?

I do not accept that final point, but I accept that we have a problem—and a job to do—with encouraging more youngsters to study science. An important element of that will be the new GCSE, 21st century science, on which we are working. Several initiatives are being followed across the board to ensure that we get more students interested in science. The Roberts report said that one of the main problems was that science was perceived as being dull, and we need to work on that as well as the other initiatives to address the important problem that my hon. Friend raises.

How many education authorities provide only (a) a sixth-form college and (b) school sixth-form provision for post-16 education; and what plans he has for diversity of supply in post-16 education. [128982]

There are eight local education authorities in England where 16 to 19 education is provided solely in a mixture of sixth-form colleges and genera further education colleges. There are no local education authorities where post-16 provision is delivered only through sixth forms. There will be no national blueprint for the pattern of learning. However, popular and successful sixth-form provision, whether in schools, sixth-form colleges or new, distinct sixth-form centres in FE colleges, will be encouraged, especially where there is little or inadequate provision.

I am grateful for that answer. Will my hon. Friend consider the position in Redcar, which is one of the authorities with only college provision for post-16 education? The take-up rates are very low. A beacon school has now proposed a sixth form with specific outreach into the areas with the lowest take-up rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that that represents progress that we should encourage?

Our objective in every community is to increase significantly the number of young people staying on in education and training post-16 to achieve qualifications that lead either to higher education or to skilled employment. We have asked local learning and skills councils to conduct strategic reviews in the next two years, to consider post-16 provision in both those areas and to make recommendations for improvement. Alongside that, local education authorities have the right to publish proposals for consultation on the creation of new school sixth forms. I would expect my hon. Friend's local learning and skills council and local education authority to engage fully with her views, in the best interests of her constituents. If she felt that that was not happening appropriately, I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss the matter.

In drawing up his plans for post-16 education, will the Minister be guided by the views of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who seems to think that training to be a plumber is less valid than doing an academic degree?

My right hon. Friend did not make that point. The tragedy of this debate is that the Conservatives are repeating the reason why vocational education and training has never worked before in this country. They want a system of sheep and goats, in which able young people receive academic education and young people from different social backgrounds receive vocational education. We want a system that supports every individual young person in fulfilling their potential. We want a society that has adequate numbers of plumbers and of scientists and lawyers.

Will the Minister explain why the No. 10 policy unit—and in particular Mr. Andrew Adonis, who I know is loved by Labour Members—is so keen on delivering sixth-form education through sixth-form colleges, rather than on the more varied approach about which the Minister has just spoken?

We have made it absolutely clear that there is no national blueprint for appropriate 16-to-19 education. We want the local organisations in every community to look at the best interests of those young people to ensure that far more of them stay on in education and training and progress into higher education or skilled employment. We recognise that between the ages of 16 and 19 young people have distinct needs and are vulnerable. We need a system that can respond to those specific needs. It is for local agencies, such as the learning and skills councils and LEAs, and professionals and parents in each community, to determine the provision that will deliver improved participation and higher attainment.

If he will make a statement on the working of the new funding allocation system for local education authorities. [128983]

The new LEA funding system consists of a basic amount per pupil that is the same everywhere, plus top-ups for deprived pupils and for areas with higher recruitment and retention costs. We are working on the detailed proposals to restore stability to school funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced to the House on 17 July.

What response would the Minister give to schools in my constituency and across Lincolnshire, which the LEA predicts are facing an estimated budget cut in this financial year of £2.133 million, based on the new funding formula? Further cuts are predicted in the 2004–05 financial year, affecting 29 out of 63 secondary schools in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister take this opportunity to assure my constituents, and teachers and students in Lincolnshire, that those funds will be returned and that school budgets will be increased next year? That would honour the commitments by the Secretary of State, and by the Minister for School Standards himself, that there will be no repetition of this year's funding problems?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this year schools in his constituency are funded to the tune of £1,130 more per pupil than was the case six years ago. If individual schools face particular problems, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would write to me to explain how those problems have arisen. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that every LEA in the country has been contacted by the Department to help model the options for 2004–05 and 2005–06, to ensure that we have the continued growth in the teacher and support staff work force of which we are so proud.

Will my hon. Friend say what has happened to the funding formula in the past six months? When it was first announced, the Conservative leadership of Cheshire county council praised the Government for the changes that they had made. Now, however, the council seems to be fundamentally critical of the changes. What has happened in the past six months?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have not changed the funding formula in the past six months. The formula for this financial year is the one announced in the House in December.

Will the Minister agree to investigate the impact on the funding formula of the Greenwich judgment, which is resulting in higher cross-border pupil movements? The needs of those schools in my constituency that are largely populated by out-of-borough pupils are in no way reflected in the formula allocated to the borough.

The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter often raised with me by people representing constituencies in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, where there are also cross-border pupil movements. I should be interested to hear any particular evidence from his constituency and from London that the hon. Gentleman may have. I have not seen evidence before that this has been a particular problem in London. The hon. Gentleman will know that the funding formula and the recommendations for teachers pay from the School Teachers Review Body treat different parts of London in different ways. I had not heard that the Greenwich judgment was having adverse consequences, but I should be very happy to look into the matter.

Before the Minister repeats the figures that he gave to the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) about Somerset funding, may I say that I accept that, empirically, we are doing better now than in the dark days of the previous Conservative Government? However, a differential does exist. Counties such as Somerset and other rural shires in the west country, as well as parts of the midlands, are doing extremely badly in comparison with other parts of the country. The difference in per-pupil funding is greater than what might reasonably be caused by differences in costs. Will the Minister look at the formula again to ensure that all children in all parts of the country have a basic entitlement to the money needed for their education?

We are always pleased by the generous even-handedness of the Liberal Democrats. Our commitment is that similar pupils in different parts of the country should have similar amounts of money attached to them by central Government. That is the fair way to act. There is a basic entitlement for every pupil in the country. Every pupil who comes from a family living in poverty gets extra, and those in high-cost areas receive extra too. That funding formula is the right basis for the future, and the funds that go out are based on the nature of local populations around the country, which is the fairest way of distributing them.

How many secondees are working in the Serious Fraud Office; and if she will make a statement. [128961]

Two secondees from the private sector are working in the Serious Fraud Office, and two staff are on loan from other Government Departments. It helps the effective investigation and prosecution of serious and complex fraud if there is a good understanding between the SFO and the private sector and between the SFO and other Departments and agencies.

Does the Solicitor-General think that that is enough? Given the recent high-profile collapse of Customs and Excise cases, particularly the London City Bond prosecution, the Butterfield review recommended that there should be more systematic dialogue between Customs and other Departments. Does the Solicitor-General believe that that could be facilitated by more secondments between the SFO and Customs and Excise? If so, what can she do about it?

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Obviously, the SFO must achieve the right balance between permanent staff, those seconded and those employed on contract to increase capacity or bring in specialist knowledge during a particular case. She raises the question of Customs, particularly in the LCB case. A statement was made to the House in July by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury following the report of Mr. Justice Butterfield, who made a number of recommendations for building on progress already made in Customs and Excise investigations and prosecutions. There will be a report later in the autumn on how we intend to take things forward.

Every year fraudsters and so-called white-collar criminals rob thousands of victims, causing untold damage. In spite of the presence of secondees, there are continuing reports of low levels of prosecution by the SFO. What percentage of cases referred to the SFO resulted in prosecutions in the most recent year for which statistics are available? Is the Solicitor-General satisfied that all cases that deserve prosecution are prosecuted by the SFO?

Of the cases referred to the SFO, something like 40 per cent. of those that the SFO decides to take on for vetting result in prosecution. Obviously, many cases are referred to the SFO in which people have not realised what the SFO's remit is, and those cases are more appropriate to another prosecutions agency. So, something like 40 per cent. of those taken on for vetting end up being prosecuted. That is quite a high figure.

On whether all serious fraud that ought to be prosecuted by the SFO is being prosecuted, I think we must all agree—including the SFO—that the answer is no. Something like £14 billion worth of fraud occurs annually in our economy. The Attorney-General and I, like the SFO, are in no doubt that we must take white-collar crime very seriously. The law must be even handed in ensuring that those who are money laundering in the City are dealt with effectively and fairly.

The Solicitor-General will recognise that there is great concern among the Opposition and outside the House about the collapse of the Customs and Excise cases to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) referred. Does the Solicitor-General recognise the need for all-party discussions on the implications of the Butterfield report? Will she meet me, and colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) who expressed concerns to the Economic Secretary when he made his statement, so that we can ensure that fraud prosecutions are much better conducted in future, whether by Customs and Excise, the SFO or any other body?

Of course, I will arrange for those meetings to take place. We would want to discuss these important issues of prosecuting Customs cases and serious fraud cases with the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who take an interest in them. I will get back to him with a response. With more focus on the issue, with the right framework and procedures and with the right amount of resources allocated to serious fraud, I think that we can take matters forward.

What discussions she has had with her European counterparts on common practice relating to public prosecutions. [128962]

Crime is international now and we need to work with our European counterparts and more widely internationally to combat it. To that end, I met other European Justice Ministers in The Hague in April to discuss and support the work of Eurojust, the European network of prosecutors. The Attorney-General constantly meets and discusses a wide range of issues with other Justice Ministers—particularly EU Ministers. Both the Attorney-General and I work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service's European and international division, whose work I commend to the House.

I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. Does she realise that the criminal justice system goes to the heart of the system in each member state? Scotland prides itself on having its own legal system, as she is only too well aware. It would be entirely inappropriate for the Government to subscribe to common EU standards of evidence and procedure. Will the right hon. and learned Lady resist any attempt to impose on this country a uniform EU standard of criminal procedures?

We want close co-operation. Crime does not recognise national borders and we have to ensure that if a crime is committed in one country, and the evidence is in a second, it can be prosecuted in a third. That is important for human trafficking, drug smuggling and dealing with money laundering and terrorism, as the hon. Lady will accept. That is one question. The other is accountability. It is certainly the case that while prosecution decisions that are taken in this country are taken independently, I am accountable to the House for them. That is important and it is the way it will remain. Of course, it is important that the House makes the decisions—the substantive criminal law—and decides the procedures. The Convention material reflects the differences between legal systems throughout Europe. We definitely want to keep our own accountability and autonomy, but we must have more co-operation and we must work more closely together. We must work in a harmonised way to get to grips with international criminals.

What additional resources have been made available to enable the Serious Fraud Office (a) to investigate and (b) to prosecute cases of bribery by UK citizens and companies abroad. [128963]

In this financial year, the SFO budget has risen to £23.41 million and it is due to increase further to £35.34 million by the end of 2005–06. The SFO plans to use some of those resources to expand its permanent staff numbers to approximately 300 by the end of that financial year. Each case referred to the SFO is assessed on its individual merits, including allegations of bribery by United Kingdom citizens or companies overseas.

One of the consequences of the dreadful attacks two years ago on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon was that the House decided to enact legislation to make international bribery and other international financial crimes offences in British law. Naturally, I want to know that the SFO is investigating cases and that prosecutions will follow. I am not asking my right hon. and learned Friend to make a statement in detail to the House but I wonder whether she would be willing for me and a representative from the Transparency International UK branch to talk to her about that matter so that we can be reassured that the legislation is not just gathering dust on the statute book but is actively being used to clamp down on international bribery.

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to talk about those issues, which he has done so much to bring before the House. Indeed, I acknowledge his role in raising the issues covered by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I would be happy to discuss with him the enforcement of that important Act.

What plans the Attorney-General has to refer unduly lenient sentences in rape cases to the Court of Appeal to seek general guidance on sentencing. [128966]

The Attorney-General and I have the power to refer a sentence imposed for a limited number of serious offences, including rape, to the Court of Appeal if the sentence is, in our view, unduly lenient. In 2003, the Attorney-General and I referred sentences in 12 cases involving rape. The Court of Appeal increased the sentences in four, and seven cases of rape that we referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences have yet to be heard.

I am grateful for that answer. Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the courts are implementing the sentencing advisory panel's recommendation that they should sentence as harshly for rape by an acquaintance as they must for rape by a stranger? If she is not entirely satisfied of that, are not unduly lenient sentence applications, appropriately brought, a way forward?

My hon. and learned Friend reminds the House that a key part of the sentencing advisory panel's recommendations was that rape that is supposedly acquaintance rape should not of itself be regarded as less serious than rape by a complete stranger. That recommendation was accepted by the Court of Appeal in their guideline judgment in the case of Milberry in December and that is what all courts should be following. However, if my memory serves me right, none of the cases that we have had to refer to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient sentences has involved a stranger rape, so we are looking particularly at how the Court responds to the importance of recognising all the circumstances of an individual case, and that rape by a husband, a partner or a friend can be every bit as violent and traumatising as rape by a stranger.

I wish to make a statement about identity passes. Members will appreciate that security issues are a source of deep concern and the provision of these passes is a basic security measure, which helps to protect us all.

Our security staff cannot be expected to identify all those who have access to the parliamentary estate. Although I recognise that it is impractical for Members to wear their passes at all times, it is essential for them to carry their passes and to co-operate with the security staff if they are asked to produce them.

Members are personally responsible for the consistent wearing of passes by their staff. Members of the parliamentary Press Gallery and staff of all other organisations attached to the House must wear their passes at all times.

I ask Members to set an example and to give their full support to the Serjeant at Arms and to all our security staff who carry out their admirable work to make the parliamentary estate a safe place in which to work for Members, Members' staff and all the staff of the House.