1. What representations he has received on the future of the Basford Hall College campus of New College Nottingham; and if he will make a statement. (102283)

The Department has received two representations about Basford Hall’s future, although we are aware of the high level of local interest in New College Nottingham’s proposals. The Learning and Skills Council will need to consider proposals from the college, and made it clear in a recent letter to the college, which my hon. Friend may have seen, that it must be satisfied that learners will continue to have convenient access to facilities for education and training that meet their needs, and that levels of participation in the area will not be adversely affected.

My constituency has some of the worst educational deprivation in the UK. At none of the seven secondary schools can youngsters stay on. We have fewer youngsters going on to university than in any other constituency. If ever a constituency needed to keep its last remaining further education base open, it is Nottingham, North. Will my hon. Friend facilitate further discussions between all parties in the Nottingham area, including New College Nottingham and other FE providers, private sector providers, the community and the voluntary sector, so that we can ensure not only that that further education college is preserved, but that it reaches out into the communities that need FE the most?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaign. He has had two meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, he has had an Adjournment debate on the topic, and I notice that he has a parliamentary newsletter campaigning on it. All the other Education Ministers appear in it but I do not, so I shall have to have a word with my hon. Friend about that. Let me make it clear that only in exceptional circumstances would we expect to see the removal of a significant further education site from an area of educational deprivation. We have seen no evidence of any such exceptional circumstances in this case, so I urge New College Nottingham to draw up a proposal, and, yes, we would expect the Learning and Skills Council to use its good offices to work with all partners to develop a solution that will enhance skills training for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

2. If he will make a statement on the recent changes in provision of adult education courses at colleges in England. (102284)

3. What changes there have been in the number of places on adult learning courses in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. (102285)

7. What changes there have been in the number of adult learning courses in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. (102289)

We do not hold details of current programmes centrally, but between 1997-98 and 2005-06 investment in further education increased by 48 per cent. in real terms. Public investment in adult education will increase again by 7 per cent. to over £3 billion in 2007-08 compared with 2006-07, and we will continue to support over 4 million adult learners and safeguard £210 million for personal, community and development learning. In order to tackle skills gaps in our work force, we will increasingly focus funding on longer courses that lead to qualifications, so that adults have the right employability skills. This will result in a reduction in publicly funded places on low priority short courses and non-accredited provision. However, that will be offset by increased funding for skills for life courses, train to gain activity and those studying for their first, full level 2 qualification.

The Secretary of State would accept, I think, that in the next 10 years, two out of three jobs created in our economy will be for older workers because of demographic trends and the shortage of youngsters coming through the school system. I am sure he would also accept that between 2005 and 2008, according to the Association of Colleges, we are due to lose some 700,000 places for adults in our FE colleges. Given that in constituencies such as mine, the main way in which older workers get back into learning and training is through non-accredited courses, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify the almost total eradication of community education in north Yorkshire, so that now, unless people can afford to pay for a non-accredited course, they simply cannot find one?

The hon. Gentleman knows about these matters from his long experience. I do not recognise the figure of 700,000. The LSC said that when we make the transition—which, remember, Foster recommended in his report—we must be much more focused on employability skills, given the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was the LSC that said that the net result would be a reduction of about 230,000 in fully publicly funded courses. It has since scaled that figure down to about 200,000, but that is set against the courses available in train to gain where, so to speak, the caravan of learning goes to small businesses and offers a service to them, rather than small businesses having to seek out that service. The important point is that we should have the courage and fortitude to see the change through. I know the hon. Gentleman accepts that. It means some painful decisions in colleges because the taxpayer should be funding our priorities, and the level of funding that the college asks the individual and the employer to contribute has to be much greater. That is the essence of the Foster review and of our approach.

It is not just a question of people having to pay more for adult education courses. People in Burley and Wharfedale in my constituency have suffered because Bradford college has closed Burley grange, which provided adult education courses. Will the Secretary of State look again at the financial provision for adult education courses to prevent such closures from occurring? What are he and the Learning and Skills Council doing to ensure that buildings such as Burley grange in my constituency are protected so that they are used for education purposes and not sold off for purposes such as house building?

Following incorporation, further education colleges are in charge of their own property. Shipley college has very good links with employers. We understand that good progress is being made towards full cost recovery. The number of adults in further education is increasing, as is the investment in further education. The difference is the focus; we focus remorselessly on those who do not have at least an adult level 2 qualification, and from next year, we will focus on 19 to 25-year-olds getting a level 3 qualification—that is where taxpayers’ money should be spent—on train to gain and on the huge expansion in apprenticeships. If we prioritise everything, we prioritise nothing. I have outlined our priorities, which are the right ones for the country. I accept that there will be problems in places such as Shipley, and in other places, but we need to overcome them to put FE in a far stronger position than it has been in the past.

I understand what the Secretary of State is saying, but is he not concerned that there are pensioners in my constituency who cannot afford to take the courses because the fees have gone up so much? Many who want to upskill, or to retrain and reskill, find that the courses have been cut and are not in existence. What reassurances can he give on this? It is all very well for him to talk in these words, as he does, but real priorities exist in areas such as mine in south-east London, which are suffering because of his redistribution of money so that courses are not available for my constituents.

I will try to find another way to talk other than in words, but at the moment it is just about the only way I have got.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about 60-plus learners. In 1996, there were 78,000 60-plus learners in FE, whereas there are now 147,000. On personal, community and development learning, which is learning intrinsically for the sake of learning, we have ring-fenced and safeguarded £210 million, both now and into the future, and that remains available.

I believe that Bexley college is in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. As he well knows, it under-delivered in 2005-06 to the tune of providing only 84 per cent. of the provision that it should. It had a bad inspection in 2004. It is now satisfactory and things are improving. I am sure that Bexley college, like others, will adapt to this new situation and succeed.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, or at least Labour Members, will want to join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the increase of more than 7 per cent.—more than £3 billion next year—in public investment in adult education. Does he share my concerns that we have not got the balance quite right in the past on the investment made by the Government, by individuals and by employers in adult education? Does he not think that employers need to do a lot more if we are to have the sort of investment in our adults that we need?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Having been placed at the heart of the skills agenda—employers have rightly argued that previously it was educationists, civil servants and politicians who told them the skills that they would need in the future—I think that employers recognise that, through the sector skills councils and other measures, we have put them at the heart of this process. I think that the Leitch report will have a lot to say about the balance of who should be doing what in providing the skills we need for 2020.

Returning to a point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), Leitch’s first report found that 70 per cent. of the work force of 2020 are already in the workplace now. That makes the issue of even higher priority than it has been before.

I, too, welcome the increased funding for adult education. In my constituency, part of our plan to make it easier for people in work to access the training that they need is to build a new education campus with both higher and further education elements. I am delighted that the Learning and Skills Council has indicated that it will make the funding available for its own component of that. Will my right hon. Friend provide me with the reassurance that my constituents need that the application before the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the higher education component will also be taken seriously?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is being taken seriously. Even as we speak, 14 per cent. of higher education is carried out in FE colleges and, with the welcome expansion of foundation degrees, that will increase. It is important that we see further education in relation to the skills that it provides not only at an intermediate level—levels 2 and 3—but at level 4 and above so that it provides the skills that we will need in the future.

I accept my right hon. Friend’s statement about the need to focus on adult skills, but will he also consider carefully the decisions that are being made by learning and skills councils about non-accredited courses? Some non-accredited courses are the way in which the most disadvantaged adults come back in to education, and we need to ensure that such courses are available and that we build on them. They are not the same as leisure courses. The tendency is for colleges to focus on those who will attain level 2 very easily, and the most disadvantaged can often lose out.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We recognise the importance of that first level; that is why the foundation tier is crucial and we are considering these pathways that adults can gain. Entry to employment—E2E—had its successes and failures, and we think that we need a new foundation tier. One of the other issues that my hon. Friend mentions repeatedly—she mentioned it again in an excellent contribution to the Queen’s Speech debate on this subject—is the role of union learning reps in the job of being almost evangelical about learning and education. That is something we need to expand and build on. It is an important point and does not detract from our priorities; in fact, it adds to our ability to meet them.

The Secretary of State said that demographic change means that opportunities for older learners and workers are vital, but adult learners are seeing their courses cut across the country, as we have heard from Members from all parties. The Association of Colleges says that 700,000 places have been cut; the Secretary of State says 200,000. He has talked about priorities. Will he tell us, therefore, how many of the courses that are being cut relate to older learners, and how many relate to employment and to vulnerable groups such as disabled people? Learners deserve to know the facts, colleges need to plan and, frankly, this House deserves more than bull and bluster.

Let me make one important point about the disabled and people with learning difficulties. We are prioritising provision for learners with disabilities or learning difficulties, with a record £1.5 billion being spent on 640,000 learners. That is an increase of £200 million and of 60,000 learners in the past two years alone, so that is crucial. I obviously do not have the detailed information about the age profile of people on such courses, but I am clear—even more so since my visit to the AOC conference this week—that FE colleges realise the need to change and the need to drop shorter, low-priority, less expensive courses in favour of longer, more expensive courses that lead to something at the end for the individual involved.

The spokesmen from the two Front Benches—the three Front Benches, even—should not disagree about this fundamental issue, given the fact that by 2014 two thirds of workers will require at least intermediate skills at levels 2 or 3 and that by 2020, 40 per cent. of jobs will be filled by graduates. There will need to be 5 million more highly skilled jobs and, perhaps most frightening of all, the number of unskilled jobs will go down from 3.5 million to just over 500,000 by 2020. If that does not focus our minds on the need to change course with FE, despite all the pains, and all the bull and bluster—which I believe comes from the Opposition rather than from us—nothing will. I hope that Leitch adds to that focus when his final report is published soon.

While I recognise the importance of the shift—my right hon. Friend’s comments demonstrate why it is a strategic shift—will he specifically consider sports coaches? One of the dilemmas is that they are older adults. The Government have a policy of trying to drive up the standard of community coaches, and there is a problem. I have met Ministers but will my right hon. Friend take a specific interest, so that we can deliver another Government target and ensure that the legacy of the Olympics applies throughout the country?

I had trouble remembering that my hon. Friend was the Member for Loughborough until he finished his question. I accept that the issue is important. My hon. Friend the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning has been to Loughborough to discuss the matter, focusing on sports in schools, especially the school sports partnership, which will lead to two hours of high quality PE and training by 2010, increasing to four hours thereafter. This is the age of the sports college coach.

I am sure that we understand what the Secretary of State says about the number of people going into adult education, but does he accept that the mix of people is crucial? Does he also accept that, at places such as Weston-super-Mare FE college, where I am a governor, the number of places for people over 25 on courses above level 2 is being cut? As the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, there is a problem with the number of people who are trying to get back into the work force and require non-accredited courses as an interim step. It is crucial that the FE sector responds to the needs of those groups—those returning to work, those who have been made redundant and need to reskill and older workers. At the moment, it is taking a backward step.

I do not accept that. I do not know the circumstances in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but if he writes to me, I shall look into the matter. However, public money is finite and needs to be concentrated on our priorities. The majority of people who already have skills and are at level 2 or above should make a bigger contribution. That does not apply to those on low income, those who have just been made redundant—normally a package is put together in those circumstances—or other groups of people who qualify for free further education. The presumption has always been that everyone at an FE college will pay 25 per cent. of the costs. FE colleges rarely charged that. The presumption has now moved to 37 per cent. and by 2010, it will move to 50 per cent. That is not the full cost of the college course, but it constitutes a necessary rebalancing of finances between the taxpayer, the individual and the employer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) said earlier, that is the important message to get across.

4. What measures local education authorities are considering to increase the take-up of healthy school meals. (102286)

Local authorities are using a range of measures to increase school lunch take-up. They include: improving dining areas to make them more attractive to eat in; creating promotional materials on nutrition and healthy lifestyles, and involving parents in activities such as tasting sessions for the new food.

This Government are offering an unprecedented £477-million package of support to help schools and local authorities improve school food and increase take-up.

A recent BBC survey showed that the take-up of healthy school food was falling. Will my hon. Friend consider the eat well, do well scheme in Hull, which introduced free healthy school meals in all our primary schools and special schools and led to doubling the take-up? In some schools, more than 90 per cent. of children have taken up the healthy school meals option.

My hon. Friend makes a good point about what Labour-run Hull chose to do in 2004—it was ahead of the game. I accept her general comments about take-up and the BBC survey. However, although we accept that there are problems with take-up, which we anticipated two-and-a-half months into the new standards, we are in this for the long-term and we believe that we will make a difference to take-up. The BBC survey had 59 responses out of 150 local authorities, of which approximately 35 had experienced problems with take-up. That means that 115 did not respond to say that they had problems with it. Having said that, I understand that we need to work on the matter. We are therefore doing a great deal with pupils, schools and parents to ensure that take-up increases.

Is the Minister aware of the excellent work being done by the British Pig Executive—BPEX—to promote the uses of pork as a nutritious, low-fat food? Could he spare 30 minutes to meet representatives of BPEX to discuss how pork could be more widely used in our schools, which would be welcomed by the award-winning pig farmers of South Norfolk and elsewhere?

That is a very good local press release for the hon. Gentleman—I congratulate him on that. I would be delighted to meet him and his constituents, perhaps over a bacon sandwich. The interesting underlying point here is that the School Food Trust is doing important work in relation to balanced food in our schools. We are putting about £477 million into this project between now and 2011 and, for the first time since the 1960s, we are seeing a subsidy on school food, which is very important.

I do not know where the Minister was at quarter to 7 this morning, but if he was watching television he would have seen an outside broadcast featuring the catering staff of the City of Leicester college. The training of such staff is crucial to the take-up of healthy school meals. Catering staff in my area—at least 40 per cent. of whom are in the private sector—are worried by the lack of a common approach by employers towards paid leave for attending the relevant vocational and training courses. Will the Minister assure me and those members of staff that they will not lose pay when they attend such courses? That is important to the individuals concerned, and to the take-up of healthy school meals.

I assure my hon. Friend that I was watching the “Breakfast” news programme this morning, and I saw some of the excellent work that is being done. The staff at the City of Leicester college was one of the areas that was highlighted, so well done to them. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are setting aside £2 million for regional training centres to help catering staff to get skilled up to the levels that we require. We are also introducing new national vocational qualifications at level 1 and level 2 to assist this process. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about staff being able to take time off to attend classes. I am certainly of the view that most good employers would agree that their staff should be able to get skilled up in the work place in order to make their contribution to healthier school food.

There are 4.6 million children who decide not to take school meals—healthy or otherwise. Perhaps they prefer to eat bacon sandwiches, in support of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon). Does the Minister accept that, while schools have a right and a duty to inform parents of the healthy options for packed lunches, principals and teachers do not have a duty to act as food police, to remove items from lunch boxes or to deny youngsters the opportunity to eat their packed lunches on school premises just because the principal deems them to be unhealthy?

It is not part of our plan to ban packed lunches, but head teachers and teachers in many schools take a responsible role in helping to educate children about quality food in their packed lunches. An important part of what we are trying to do is to get the message across to children, not least through the entitlement to learn to cook a nutritional meal by the age of 16. It is important, however, in handing down that education to the children, that the message also gets back to the parents. Parents have an important role to play, not least in raising the take-up of healthy school meals.

The Minister just mentioned children’s entitlement to learn to cook a nutritional meal by the age of 16. In that context, will he have another look at food technology in the curriculum? Rather than teaching our children how to design a Mars bar, perhaps we could teach them how to cook a shepherd’s pie.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are working on this with the School Food Trust. I understand that about 70 per cent. of schools offer food technology lessons. We will also be working with extended schools to ensure that there is an entitlement for all children to be able to learn to cook a quality meal—not just with Mars bars, but with healthy, nutritional food—by the age of 16.

5. If he will take steps to bring pay for staff in colleges into line with that paid to staff in schools who teach the same subject at the same level. (102287)

The Government are not the employer of further education staff. Further education colleges were established as independent organisations by the Conservative Government in 1992. We believe that it is important that colleges retain the discretion to make their own decisions about pay for their staff, within their overall budget. However, the 48 per cent. real-terms increase in funding that this Government have delivered to the further education sector has helped to improve pay levels in FE.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, although he must now go back a long way—1992—for justification in relation to the problems for which the Government are responsible. A report from the Learning and Skills Council makes it clear that colleges are receiving 13 per cent. less per student than schools for providing the same type of course. That equates to about £400 per pupil or £600,000 per college. If we are to allow colleges, such as the Bournemouth and Poole college in my constituency, to compete more fairly with schools, does he agree that we should pump money not only into lower and intermediate skills but into further education?

I was not going back a long way; I was comparing like with like. Since 1997, the Government have increased funding to further education colleges by 48 per cent. in real terms, which compares favourably with a 14 per cent. real terms cut in the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. The funding gap, however, is an issue. Last year, we made a commitment that that 13 per cent. gap should be reduced. In one year, we reduced it by 5 per cent. and we have plans to reduce it by a further 3 per cent. by 2008. In the longer term, we will establish a common funding arrangement system for all post-16 provision to ensure comparable funding for comparable activity, regardless of institution. The Government have credibility on the issue, and I fail to understand how the Conservative party, which is committed to £21 billion of public expenditure cuts, can have that.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to establishing a common funding system in the longer term. Given the development of the 14-to-19 curriculum following the Tomlinson report’s recommendations, should not the common funding system apply from 14, not just 16? Does he not agree that the best way to deliver the 14-to-19 curriculum is through a managed, co-ordinated tertiary system, and not through the proliferation of more new small sixth forms?

In direct response to my hon. Friend’s last point, different options are needed for young people, and we should not shut off such choices. On reducing the funding gap, before the Government’s commitment last year, the critique that that was just warm words had some validity. But the commitment last year to reduce the funding gap by 5 per cent. in one year, by a further 3 per cent. by 2008, and then to establish a common funding system, is real evidence that we are making progress.

The gap in staff pay and per pupil funding has already been mentioned as but one of numerous funding discrepancies between colleges and schools. Colleges, for example, pay VAT on supplies, whereas schools can reclaim it from the Government. Does the Minister consider that fair?

That is a long-standing issue, and the independent status under incorporation of further education colleges confers real advantages, which is right and proper. FE colleges have prospered under that system. The increased funding available has driven up success rates, but funding anomalies remain between the two systems. Our commitments of last year are starting to make progress on that, as FE college principals up and down the country to whom I talk recognise.

6. If his Department will place greater emphasis on the teaching of geography in schools. (102288)

We are investing £2 million over the next two years to promote geography in schools. Our action plan for geography, which includes new resources and training for schools and chartered status for excellent geography teachers, was launched earlier this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also launching the education outside the classroom manifesto next week, which will be of particular importance to geography.

I am, of course, grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. But is it acceptable, at a time when citizenship is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, that one in five pupils was unable to locate the United Kingdom on a world atlas, while one in 10 was unable to mention a single continent, according to a survey of 1,000 six to 14-year-olds for the new magazine National Geographic Kids? In addition, thousands of children from London were unaware that they lived in the United Kingdom’s capital city. I learned about the oceans, seas, mountains, capitals of countries and major rivers of the world—

And Macclesfield.

Yes, and Macclesfield. Should we not get back to some of the fundamentals of geography education in our schools?

I am always slightly wary of surveys connected with the launch of magazines encouraging parents to ensure that children learn more geography, but, speaking as a geography graduate, I am very keen for them to learn more geography.

The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that we are piloting a new geography GCSE in some areas, so that pupils can learn not just about the joys of Macclesfield—about how the settlement developed in response to the copper mines and silk mills, and about the magnificent citizens of the town—but about some of the key issues that we face in the House, such as uneven development in different regions and countries, globalisation, sustainability, futures and interdependence. In fact, I think that the new geography GCSE would be an excellent qualification for us all to obtain.

Speaking as a former geography teacher, may I suggest that we would have more confidence in the Government’s policies on geography if a Department for Transport consultation on the location of London’s airports had not sited the Isle of Wight just off the south coast of Portland Bill?

As the Member representing Portland, I can say that while I can see the Isle of Wight from my constituency when I am in Swanage, it is a very clear day when I can see it from Portland. Perhaps I will refer my friends at the Department for Transport to the new GCSE and see whether they are interested in it as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) was right to mention the survey by National Geographic Kids, which highlights some serious issues in our schools. The Minister will be aware that the number of pupils taking GCSEs in geography has dropped by a staggering 40,000. Does he share our concern about the drift away from the study of core academic subjects? The number of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs graded A* to C in English, maths, science and modern languages has fallen from 30 per cent. five years ago to just 25 per cent. last year.

Geography remains the fourth most popular GCSE, behind English literature, French and history, which are all serious, traditional academic subjects, so I do not entirely recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The number is certainly falling, but it is falling in the context of more choice. I think that the Conservative party believes in choice in education, as we do.

We can all play around with statistics, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware that by any measure—including that employed by the chief inspector of schools, who yesterday said unambiguously that schools were continuing to improve alongside the public’s expectations—and according to any analysis of results at 16, 18, 11 or any other stage of education, things are improving radically and rapidly in our schools.

8. What resources are available to schools which offer education to pupils who have been excluded from other schools; and if he will make a statement. (102290)

When previously excluded pupils are admitted to new schools, the funds relating to them will be transferred to the receiving schools. Additional support may also be available to schools from local authorities’ behaviour support services, in the form of resources and support staff.

I think the Minister will agree that the exclusion of a pupil should represent the beginning of another process, not the end of that person’s education. What advice would he give to three schools in my area, Cleeve, Tewkesbury and Winchcombe, which are getting together to try to deal with all excluded pupils so that they do not miss out on education and do not cause further trouble in society? What support, particularly financial support, is available for arrangements of that kind?

I know that such initiatives have been very successful, notably in Coventry and Lincolnshire. Local authorities have delegated funds for facilities such as pupil referral units to groups of schools so that they have an interest in looking after excluded pupils and returning them to mainstream education, which is where the vast majority belong. I wish them well, but it is for the schools to negotiate with local authorities themselves. The innovation unit in the Department has given some support to trailblazers, but it is now well established that groups of schools can offer much better outcomes than local authorities directly running referral units. That has been shown in many areas all over the country.

Can we ensure that we have full and proper protection for our teachers against violent pupils? If a child has been excluded from a school because they have been violent towards a member of the teaching staff, they should not be foisted back on to the school or on to another school against the wishes of the teachers there.

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have made it clear that heads can permanently exclude pupils who are very disruptive or violent. Guidance for exclusion appeals panels makes it clear that a permanent exclusion should not normally be overturned in a range of circumstances, including violence or the threat of violence.

9. What funding the Higher Education Funding Council has allocated for training doctors at the Leicester University of Leicester medical school for 2006-07. (102291)

The Higher Education Funding Council for England allocated £61 million to the University of Leicester for 2006-07, which is an increase of 4 per cent. over the previous year. The allocation of that funding within the university is a matter for the institution.

I am delighted by the increase from the HEFC, but unfortunately—as the Minister will know—funding is a joint responsibility between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. The NHS is cutting the training and education budget by 10 per cent., which professors at the University of Leicester medical school have described as ridiculously short-sighted and seriously damaging. Will the Minister please get in touch with his colleagues at the Department of Health and, if I may use the expression, get a grip on the Secretary of State for Health and ensure continuous and sustained support for university medical education in Leicester and elsewhere?

I understand the concerns about the Department of Health reductions. It is working with the Council of Deans to understand the exact impact of those reductions on training and education throughout the country. We are working closely with our ministerial colleagues on the issue and I certainly understand the issue that has been put to me directly about the right and ability of universities to plan for the longer term. I hope that we can deliver that. Despite the challenges, we have had a 71 per cent. increase in medical undergraduate numbers since 1997, which contrasts very favourably with the 50 per cent. cut in the nurse training programme that took place in the early 1990s.

I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). The medical school in Leicester is one of the finest in the country. Has my hon. Friend the Minister received an explanation from the Department of Health about why the new, state of the art medical school will be moved from its proposed site at the Leicester general hospital in my constituency to the Granby Hall site, because of a reduction of £200 million in the pathway project? Will he give us an assurance that the funding from his Department will not alter, despite the fact that the Department of Health is cutting money in particular area?

I know that my right hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues, but I am not aware of the specific details of the point he makes. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the issue. Leicester university is relatively badly affected as a newer medical school, as it receives a greater proportion of its funding for staff from the NHS rather than from the HEFC. I understand the concern and I am talking to colleagues in the Department of Health so that we can ensure greater predictability of funding in the longer term for universities.

May I inform the Minister that the suddenness and savagery of the cuts are affecting not only the University of Leicester university medical school but many other universities? The cuts are breaking contracts that they have with the NHS and disappointing thousands of nursing students who have invested time and money only to find that there are no jobs for them. Above all, the cuts are making it inevitable that there will be a critical shortage of nurses in a few years’ time. Does the Minister agree that the mismanagement of the funding is bad for nurses, doctors, universities and, above all, patients?

There are issues involved, but we need to learn from the experience of what happened in the early 1990s when the cuts in the nurse training programme make what is happening now pale in comparison. We learned from that experience and that is why I am in discussion with my colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure that we have stability and predictability for future funding patterns. I am determined that we will achieve that.

10. If he will issue advice to higher education institutions on how to ensure the compliance of their policies on outside speakers with their statutory duties. (102292)

Universities’ responsibilities in regard to outside speakers were addressed in the guidance we issued on 17 November about tackling violent extremism in the name of Islam. This built on guidance issued by Universities UK last year on dealing with hate crimes and intolerance, which I supported. I do not believe that further guidance is needed at present.

The Minister will be aware that section 43 of the Education Act 1986 provides that our education institutions must take reasonable steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured. Will he therefore agree that it is vital that lawful speech is not banned from universities and that ad hoc, home-made, no-platform policies, often drawn up by student unions, which are aimed at a group of people, regardless of their speech content, are not an acceptable and lawful way to deal with the problem?

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in this issue and I am conscious of the provisions of the 1986 Act. The guidance that we issued last Friday is consistent with that Act. Most certainly the guidance is not an attack on free speech. It makes it abundantly clear that all sorts of views that people may regard as being extreme or radical are nevertheless perfectly legitimate and acceptable. What is not acceptable is the advocacy of violence and terrorism, and the guidance was targeted at that. It needs to be made clear that a blanket no-platform policy is not consistent with the 1986 Act.

May I ask the Minister why he felt it necessary to publish guidelines relating to extremism specifically in relation to Islam?

We published those guidelines after long discussion with many people throughout the higher education sector and based on a recognition of a serious and real threat of violent extremism in the name of Islam within that sector. It is not widespread and university campuses are not hotbeds of violent extremism, but, nevertheless, that threat is the most serious one that we face and we are right to work with the universities to ensure that it is properly handled.

I agree with the Minister that we cannot get into old-style, no-platform policies. Does he agree that there is a serious problem of banned Islamic extremist organisations trying to recruit at universities? How many cases have there been of banned Islamic extremist groups trying to recruit? What progress is he making in banning Hizb ut-Tahrir from recruiting on university campuses? Does he agree that vice-chancellors are entitled to call on police support if banned groups with nothing to do with universities try to recruit on campus?

With specific reference to Hizb ut-Tahrir, my colleagues in the Home Office have made it clear that the assessment of whether to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir has been under review since the summer. As for specific incidents on campus at the moment, we made it clear in the guidance that any university would need to consider the individual speaker, their previous statements and the risk of an offence being committed under the terrorism Acts and other legal provisions. Last Friday’s guidance is about helping universities to get through that process. Individual university institutions have already taken such decisions on a number of occasions and I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the exact figure in correspondence.

13. What skills training his Department gives to assist workers who have been made redundant to find alternative jobs. (102296)

Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council work closely together on large scale redundancies to ensure that redundant employees have the skills they need to secure sustainable and productive jobs. Help is given, tailored to the needs of the individuals, employers and the local labour market.

Over the summer, three long-established York companies—British Sugar, Norwich Union and Nestlé Rowntree—announced between them in excess of 1,000 redundancies. That will put particular strain on the local training agencies; demand for adult training will be higher than usual. Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that sufficient funds will be made available to the Learning and Skills Council in North Yorkshire to ensure that those needs are met and that the redundant workers can find alternative jobs?

All of us will be disappointed by the decisions taken by the companies mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I extend our sympathy to the affected employees. I am pleased to be able to say that the local economy in the Yorkshire and Humber region is vibrant and flourishing, and many of the people affected will, I hope, quickly find new jobs. But my hon. Friend is right that this is an important moment, when the agencies concerned—the LSC and Jobcentre Plus, as well as agencies such as the regional development agency, Yorkshire Forward—must work together to provide help and support to people who want to acquire new skills. I certainly will ensure that those agencies create an effective partnership to respond directly to the needs of the individuals who have been affected by these decisions.

19. What the average length of a fraud trial has been over the last five years. (102275)

Both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office prosecute cases of fraud. For the Serious Fraud Office the average length of a contested trial is 54 sitting days—those are days when the court actually sits. Interestingly, in the past four years since 2002, 26 fraud trials have lasted more than six months and eight trials have lasted for more than a year. The CPS, which prosecutes most fraud cases in this country, does not hold information on the length of trials, although it can give information about its success rate.

I am most grateful to the Solicitor-General for that reply. Will he tell the House what the cost of those trials has been, owing to their length, and what proposals the Government have to look into ways of changing the situation? Where a fraud trial is taken by a judge alone, what will be the implications in respect of the right of appeal against the decision of that judge sitting alone?

I cannot give the costs of each of the trials at this point, but I will write to the hon. Lady on that. On her question about our proposals to reduce the length of fraud trials, I should say that their length has been reducing quite significantly in recent years. The Serious Fraud Office has worked hard to ensure that cases are brought before the courts and are able to be tried within a reasonable period, and it has managed to reduce the number of sitting days, but they are still quite long, as is clear from the figure I have quoted. In respect of non-jury trials, obviously a defendant would have a right of appeal in a similar way to a defendant tried before a jury.

Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the conviction rate in cases brought by the Serious Fraud Office is one of the highest for all forms of prosecuting authority? Will he also take this opportunity to tell the House whether it is thought that there would be any reduction in the length of trials if they were to be heard by a judge alone? I understand from speaking to members of the judiciary that they unanimously think that there would not be any reduction in the length of trials as a result of that.

The Serious Fraud Office has an increasingly good record on convictions. However, the main reason we need to move towards having about half a dozen cases a year—the most complex and serious, and the longest running, cases—decided by a judge sitting alone is that, in order to deal with the presentation of oral evidence before courts, prosecutors have in the past had to split trials and to ensure that there were only sample indictments, which meant that only some of the charges were put forward effectively and tried. The result is that the full criminality of some very serious fraud cases is never exposed in court because of the nature of the case—because it is necessary to present oral evidence as there is a jury. As we would be able to expose the full criminality before a judge, some trials may not take less time. There may be a need to go through all the evidence. In some cases there may be a saving in time, but that is not the primary issue. The issue is to expose the full criminality of serious fraud cases.

20. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to tackle diversity and equality issues within the service. (102276)

A recent report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate has commended the CPS for its significant recent progress on equality and diversity. At senior levels—chief Crown prosecutors and above—the CPS complement is made up of 29 per cent. women, 12 per cent. ethnic minorities and 6 per cent. disabled.

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend knows how many women and members of minority groups hold senior positions in the general civil service and are appointed as senior judges. What lessons does he think the CPS can teach those other groups, especially senior judges?

Of those in the senior civil service, 3.5 per cent. are from black and ethnic minority communities, 27 per cent. are women and 2.3 per cent. are disabled. Of 108 High Court judges, 11 are female and one is from a minority community. Three out of 37 Lord Justices of Appeal are female and none is from ethnic minority communities. One out of 12 Law Lords is female and none is from ethnic minority communities. I can see that the CPS could well teach lessons to many people.

While I welcome greater diversity and equality both in the CPS and in the civil service as a whole, will the Minister assure the House that appointments and promotions within those institutions will be based on merit and ability, not ethnicity and religion?

I can. It is important that we promote on the basis of merit, but also that we have a CPS that reflects our society as a whole. We need to ensure that we recruit people from minority communities who have the required qualities and merit that deserve promotion and to recognise that many women have failed to be promoted in the past due to the nature of other demands on them. We must create a work atmosphere in which women and members of ethnic minority communities are able to have their just deserts in terms of promotion.

21. What response the Law Officers have made to the recent acquittal of the British National Party leaders. (102277)

The Law Officers have discussed the case with the Crown Prosecution Service, and we are considering with colleagues whether the case has any wider implications.

Will my hon. and learned Friend be more specific? Will he speculate on whether his proposals would have the effect of banning obnoxious comments such as those made recently by Nick Griffin and Mark Collett of the British National party?

Griffin and Collett made their statements in early 2004. They were prosecuted for making racist statements, and they were acquitted by a jury. Griffin claimed in his defence that he was not attacking Asians, as had been alleged, but was attacking Muslims, and that was not against the law at the time. Parliament has passed new laws on incitement of religious hatred. Those laws were watered down by the Opposition during their passage through Parliament. It is difficult to know whether a jury might have convicted under the new law. It would have been better if the Government’s stronger Bill had been passed. Even if they were acquitted, the statements by Griffin and Collett, and their politics of stirring up hatred, remain despicable.

One should be careful before introducing any new legislation. In a free society, people have a right to be abusive about other people’s faiths, including the one to which I am an unworthy subscriber.

I very much hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that we should encourage people to stir up religious hatred in any way. That would certainly not be a desirable thing. The aim of Parliament in passing the legislation was to reduce the amount of religious hatred that is stirred up. We know that members of the BNP have been responsible for stirring up hatred for quite a long time.

I hope very much that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service will not be reluctant to prosecute any other people who might be involved in such activities just because of those acquittals. Will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that they will continue to judge cases on the current policy of success of prosecution in exactly the same way as they have done before? When does he expect that the change in the law hinted at by the Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor following the acquittals will be enacted?

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the CPS will continue to make decisions based on the evidence before it and the public interest involved in prosecuting cases and that it will not resile from prosecuting cases that ought to be prosecuted. We hope to introduce the change in the law during the coming year.

Nobody in Parliament holds a brief for any member of the BNP or what they stand for, but, given that Parliament took a view, with hon. Members from all parties taking a view, about the legislation that has just been passed, does the Solicitor-General agree that the wise thing is to let the new legislation come into force and let it be tested? One can then form a judgment on whether any further change is needed. Instantaneous reaction by people, none of whom sat through the trial, is hardly a wise way to proceed.

We will give very careful consideration to the legislation and to whether further legislation is needed. The CPS made its decision to prosecute based on comments made by Collett that were against Asians and by Griffin that were against Islam and Muslims. It would have been illegal to make those comments if they had been against Jews or Sikhs. We need to strike a balance between the freedom of speech on religious matters and stopping extremists stirring up hatred about individuals based on their religion. The jury made its decision based on the law in 2004. That will soon change. If the new watered-down legislation is not strong enough, we may need to plug the gap, but we will see how it works.