If all young people will have a choice of all options in the new deal programme; what entitlement there is for progress from one option to another; and what is the maximum period that the unemployed will be able to be part of the programme. [18746]

All young people will have a choice of options in the new deal, although there will not in every case be a choice of every option. For example, those who are already well qualified may not be eligible for the full-time education and training option. Most participants will stay on one option, but where it clearly meets a young person's needs, people will be able to move to a second option. Although most people are likely to spend less than a year in the programme, the maximum period will be 16 months, and longer if we take account of the follow-through support for those who need it at the end of the option.

I am grateful for the Minister's answer. Is he aware that one in four young unemployed people in the east midlands are in Nottingham? Many of them have been around the magic roundabout of short-term fraudulent schemes that the previous Government offered them and are deeply cynical about the concept of training. Does he accept that, for some, securing a regular attendance record over six months would be a major achievement; that we ought to be considering repairing the damage done to those whose cynicism about previous employment initiatives may have been well placed; and that we should allow longer-term continuity to bring them sensibly, and with skills, back into an employable work force?

Yes; the new deal will bring new hope and opportunity to my hon. Friend's constituents, as it will to others. The crucial importance of the gateway in the new deal programme is that it provides for young people a period of counselling, advice, assessment and the chance to try out subsequent options before choosing what they will go on to do. They will have a personal adviser who will help them not simply during the gateway period but while they are undertaking work under the option and subsequently when they so need it. Such continuity, the richness of provision and the quality that is available under the new deal will set it clearly apart from schemes that went before, which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, damaged so many young people.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the new deal, although, as the Government know, we would fund it differently. What will the Minister say to people who will not qualify for the new deal because they take national insurance credits instead of, for example, jobseeker's allowance, or are on invalidity benefit? Is it not true that, for such young people, the new deal is no deal? What will the Government do about them?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have new deal programmes not only for those in receipt of jobseeker' s allowance but for people who are disabled or have suffered long-term sickness—all from the extra £195 million, which the Chancellor made available from the windfall levy in the Budget.

Bearing in mind the high unemployment in rural areas and the lack of public transport in many such areas, what special arrangements will the Minister put in place to enable the scheme to work in rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the particular needs of rural areas. Those are being addressed by partnerships in each area, which match opportunities that will be made available locally to the needs of local participants, in conjunction with local business. We have negotiated at a national level substantial discounts through transport operators such as National Express and Stagecoach. The Rural Development Commission is working with local authorities to see how the new deal can extend transport availability in rural areas.

We welcome the new deal and the new opportunities that will be afforded to those young people who have hitherto been unemployed. What emphasis will be put on ensuring that young people gain qualifications through the new deal?

That is another aspect which sets the new deal apart from schemes that went before. Quality training is a part of every option of the new deal because it is essential, not merely to rebuild the motivation and self-esteem of so many of the young unemployed, but to provide the means to help them get jobs and stay in jobs. I wish to place on record our thanks for the work of the Northern Ireland task force in developing the new deal there.

What plans he has to assist schools in areas of deprivation and disadvantage to raise standards. [18747]

What plans he has to raise standards in schools in areas of disadvantage. [18757]

In our White Paper, we spelled out a series of measures that would raise standards and achieve our literacy and numeracy targets, including the development of the standards fund, which we have now published, and the 200 literacy co-ordinators across the country. Last week, we published the School Standards and Framework Bill, which laid out our plans for education action zones, through which we can target additional help, pilot best practice and draw together the whole community to ensure that every child in every school gets a decent education, wherever they live.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that one of the crucial concerns for the education action zones to address will be the fact that schools serving exactly the same sorts of areas of social deprivation—whether urban or rural—achieve vastly differing results, in examinations, truancy and exclusion levels and many other indicators? We need to ensure that all schools in those areas achieve their very best if the comprehensive ideal is to give all our children the start in life that they deserve.

I agree entirely. We have a bigger gap between success and failure than any other country in the developed world. Spreading best practice, developing quality leadership and headship in schools and ensuring that teachers have the professional development and in-service training necessary to do their jobs are all part of the agenda for transforming education in this country.

I am pleased to welcome the education action zones. We should appreciate knowing when the criteria for the education action zones will be published and what they will be.

I shall, within a matter of weeks, publish the detailed criteria for local communities, schools and education authorities to respond positively and in an innovatory fashion to the request to them to consider how they can use the zones to improve education in urban and rural areas. We shall of course spell out the detailed terms of reference. I hope that people will think imaginatively about how to tackle the long-standing under-achievement that has regrettably blighted the lives of some children in some parts of our country.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this morning I read the brochure "Investing in Young People: A Strategy for the Education and Training of 16 to 18 year-olds" which he sent me? Are not the Government rich in promises but poor in performance? The funding of sixth-form colleges will fall in real terms in each of the next three years because of the productivity and efficiency improvements expected of them.

We are reducing by a third the productivity improvements—or cuts, as they were previously known—demanded of the colleges by the budgets set by the previous Government. The £83 million of additional resources, not including the new deal provision, will go a long way to ensure that colleges can develop their potential. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman received, and has read, "Investing in Young People", because it contains an opportunity, in its 10-point plan, to set aside the neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds and to put in the resources and support necessary, including an additional £10 million to expand the modern apprenticeship scheme next year.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, because of the excellence of the education provided by Bromley council, many parents from surrounding Labour-run boroughs send their children to schools in Bromley? Would he care to give us a time scale suggesting how soon he expects the improvements that he promises in education to take place in the surrounding Labour boroughs, so that the parents of children in Bromley can choose the school that they wish their children to attend?

In the spirit of Christmas magnanimity, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her return to the House. I am delighted that she has raised that question, because it offers us support in sorting out the mess that results when children are excluded from their local schools because of the selective process implemented in Bromley, with school knocking out school. Getting admissions policy right, together with lifting standards in all schools for all children, will be a key part in the process of making sense of the nonsense that we inherited.

If he will list the number of after-school child care places to be provided in (a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) each of the English regions. [18748]

The precise breakdown of places will depend on the volume and quality of bids received by the new opportunities fund.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is not the affordability of good quality child care essential to the success of any welfare-to-work programme? Will he confirm that research by the equal opportunities organisation in Wales, Chwarae Teg, shows that so far child care has reached only the children of parents with professional qualifications? So far—if I may refer briefly to last night's events—it has not yet reached the classic low-paid lone parent.

The research that my hon. Friend mentions is indeed significant, and demonstrates that this country has lagged seriously behind in the provision of child care. The previous Administration did not think that they had a responsibility to develop a national child care strategy. We shall do so.

What steps he is taking to improve provision for pupils with special needs. [18749]

On 22 October, we published a Green Paper, "Excellence for all children", setting out our proposals for raising the achievement of children with special educational needs. We are beginning to receive responses to the consultation from a wide range of interests.

I welcome the initiatives set out in the Green Paper, and other steps that the Government have taken, but may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the specific difficulties facing children in care who attend mainstream education but also have special educational needs, and whose attendance record is often poor?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the under-performance of children in care. Statutorily, the state is their parent, and they have been badly let down. We want to address that issue through our responsibility not only for those with special educational needs but for looked-after children in general. We need far greater co-ordination between health authorities, social services and the education service, which have a joint collective responsibility to ensure that those children are cared for and receive a good standard of education. At the moment, many of them are being too badly let down.

When the Minister is looking at the different problems, will she recognise that a lot of head teachers—some of whom I was talking to recently—who have a proud record of helping special needs and statemented children are concerned about the policy that the Government are encouraging of inclusion in every single school? I was at one school last week where 40 per cent. of the entire roll are special needs or statemented. The head teacher feels that unless primary schools such as hers get extra resources, they will not be able to carry through the policy objectives that they wish to encourage. Will she look at the financial consequences of her policy on inclusion?

Indeed. That is why, I was delighted to announce last Friday,Official Report, column 583, that the Government had made £11 million available next year for the access initiative. That amount compares with the £4 million made available by the previous Government last year, and is the highest amount in any single year.

If he will make a statement on his plans to support the National Year of Reading. [18750]

The aim of the National Year of Reading is to demonstrate to children the excitement, pleasure and enjoyment of reading. In addition, it will encourage adults to learn to read. The Government, along with the private sector, will be supporting those objectives in a variety of ways.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, and I warmly welcome the National Year of Reading; not least because it will provide an additional impetus for the Government's crusade to raise standards of literacy. As well as encouraging children who can read to develop their skills further, should we not focus attention on those who cannot yet read at all? What plans are there to focus on that specific group as part of the National Year of Reading?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some 8 million adults are unable to read and write properly, and the National Year of Reading must treat them as a priority. We shall need to find new ways of engaging and motivating those adults. We are particularly pleased that popular television programmes such as "EastEnders" and "Brookside" have agreed to promote the National Year of Reading within their scripts. That is a positive way of engaging adults who otherwise would not be part of the National Year of Reading.

I welcome the Minister's response and the emphasis that he rightly places on raising literacy standards across the board. Therefore, is it not frankly

The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for an announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in a few days, which will reveal clearly the priorities of the Government. We believe that testing at seven is appropriate, as it is important to judge relative progress and to make sure that individual children can move on and develop their reading, and their literacy skills in general. On the wider issue of priorities, the hon. Gentleman will be pleased when he hears my right hon. Friend's announcement within 10 days.

I welcome the Minister's statement on the National Year of Reading, and I urge him to give particular attention to co-ordinating adult literacy responses with those of children. That is particularly important in areas such as mine where not only the children but the parents in council estates need to be brought up to literacy standards. When we had a consultation exercise on the White Paper recently, that was one of the strongest points that came across. Will he take that into account?

Yes, the Government want a community approach to reading. The previous Government established four family literacy schemes—just four. We shall expand that programme and have nearly 500 family literacy schemes, as we recognise that that is a positive way to involve parents in developing their children's reading skills. It is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to getting the basics right and getting parents working with their children to ensure that they have the best possible start to their school life.

If students whose maintenance grants are to be phased out in 1998–99 will be eligible for the increased student loans that students in 1999 and 2000 are eligible to receive. [18751]

New students entering higher education in the 1998–99 academic year will be eligible for increased loans in that year to offset the reduction in the level of maintenance grants. In 1999–2000, we propose to abolish maintenance grants. Those students will be eligible for an income-related loan for their maintenance on the same basis as 1999–2000 entrants.

Does the Minister share my fear that those people who are thinking of doing three or four-year undergraduate teacher training courses will be deterred by his proposals for student finance, as they know that the salaries that they will later earn as primary school teachers will be high enough for them to pay back the loan, but do not command the sort of graduate premiums that he uses to justify his proposals?

No, I do not agree. The reforms that we are putting in place see primary school teachers as an essential part of our community. They will be rewarded as such. The reward that they will receive will be to see the education system transformed and, as a result, a higher education system that will be transformed as well.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has had a chance to look at the Select Committee on Education and Employment report that was published yesterday on the funding issues arising out of the Dearing report and the Government's proposals. If he has, does he agree with the Committee's findings that, while we generally accept the thrust of Government policy, there will be a funding gap in the year 1999–2000, before the money starts to flow in? Does he further agree that that gap should not be met by declining standards in higher education, greater student poverty or continuing the cap on student numbers in higher education? Therefore, will he give the House some idea of whether he is considering other measures, such as those suggested in the Select Committee report, as a means of meeting that funding gap?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the Committee, as part of their comprehensive spending review, the Government will study that gap closely. They believe that the radical measures taken to secure sufficient funding and ensure a good and healthy future for higher education will also enable us to lift the cap on the number of students in higher education and will be sufficient to meet the long-term needs of that sector.

Does the Minister agree that, contrary to the advice of the Dearing committee, the total abolition of maintenance grants is likely to lead to a real reduction in the numbers offering themselves for higher education. Do not the likely admission figures for next year already show that to be the case?

No, they do not. The figures are slightly down on this time last year—

Really?

The hon. Gentleman can sneer, but it is true. What is more, there is evidence that 6 per cent. more students entered this year than the year before, because of the changes that are taking place in education. We think that the take-up by students this year accounts for that small drop in intake.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to end the means-testing of grants for disabled students in full-time education has been widely welcomed?

It has been widely welcomed, and it shows that the Government, unlike the previous Government, recognise the huge potential among disabled people who have felt that they could not go into higher education because of the means test. That has properly been welcomed throughout the country, and will continue to be so.

Ministers are fond of asserting that it is the Government's policy to continue the expansion of higher education that has occurred over the past 18 years.

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that those figures are extremely volatile at the best of times and that, after Monday, more than 25 per cent. of applications will not yet have been received, so the figures will account for only 75 per cent. They will show important trends, but I put it to him that if there is a downward turn, it will be very temporary, because people understand, as the Government do, that getting a degree is the best advantage that people can get if they want a good job. We shall ensure that they get that degree.

What plans he has to develop peer education schemes in schools. [18752]

We set out in "Excellence in schools" our strategy for raising standards in all schools. That includes imaginative approaches, one of which is certainly peer tutoring. It is already the practice in significant numbers of schools, and available research evidence suggests that it is effective.

Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable excitement about the introduction of the millennium volunteers scheme? Many of us who have been campaigning for such a scheme for many years are anxious that it should not be frittered away or lose its potential. Does she agree that, within the possibilities open to millennium volunteers, the expansion of peer education would be an extremely fruitful course?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution in this sector over many years and welcome his comments. Many young people have a valuable contribution to make in supporting the learning of younger people. I shall certainly take on board his suggestions.

Should not many local education authorities be congratulated on their work in developing mentoring schemes among students in schools, because of the pressures that many children face? Are not they best placed to demonstrate best practice?

Yes, and I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend's local authority in Bradford on its work, as well as the authorities in Winchester, Kirklees and Birmingham. There has been much innovation which, as the evidence shows, has raised standards. The key point is that not only the students who are tutored raise their standards: those who do the tutoring benefit as well. Peer tutoring means winning all round.

How the collection of tuition fees is to be managed and by whom; and what estimate he has made of the cost.[18753]

Under our new funding arrangements, universities and colleges will collect private contributions to tuition fees from full-time undergraduate students, building on the arrangements that they already have in place for collecting fees from part-time, postgraduate and overseas students. The higher education funding plans for 1998–99 assumed that institutions in England would collect £130 million from private contributions to fees. That figure allowed for costs of about 5 per cent. for collection, and for any default.

Sir Ron Dearing's recommendation that students should contribute towards their tuition fees has one important caveat: that the cash raised should be hypothecated to the higher education budget. Does the Minister agree?

We have already informed universities that the money that they collect will be used in universities to drive up standards, to help with the running of universities. We hope that that will continue. We are interested in lifelong learning. We want universities to be part of a seamless education structure that will allow people to enter university from many directions different from those from which they now enter. That is an important component of all our new schemes.

My hon. Friend probably knows that I oppose the introduction of tuition fees. I am wise enough to know that my opposition alone will not stop them coming in, but can he give a guarantee that if they are to be levied they will go solely to higher and further education? If they go into the Exchequer generally, they will be no more than a tax on education.

I can give my hon. Friend that guarantee. He opposes tuition fees, but presumably he does not support the present arrangement, or the ones that led to it, whereby a young person from a family in one of the two lowest socio-economic groups has a two in 10 chance of a university education while someone from a professional or managerial family has a seven or eight in 10 chance. That cannot be right, and that is why we are making the changes.

The Minister has just made it clear that tuition fees are a tax on higher education to pay for further education, as people had feared. How does he expect to run reliable means tests on students who come from outside Britain, and how much it will cost to do so?

The hon. Gentleman is known as "two brains", so he will understand that we are members of the European Union and that, as such, we have to abide by European Union law and that that task already has to be carried out. It will be carried out by an agency equipped to do the job. I do not know what mystery there is about that. We will certainly be able do it. The Government will presumably abide by it because it is the letter of the law.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the extra money allocated by the Government to local authorities is actually allocated to schools' budgets. [18754]

I have written to the leaders of all local authorities with responsibility for education to emphasise that the £1,017 million additional funding for next year should be applied directly for the benefit of children in our schools so that the average 5.7 per cent. increase can be applied directly to raising standards.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I remind him that there is a difference between schools and education. As he has written to all local authorities, why did the Labour group on Gloucestershire county council vote just two weeks ago not to pass all the money on to schools? It was only because of the Conservative group that the motion to do so was carried.

I am always in favour of Conservative authorities following Government policy, and passing on the 5.9 per cent. increase in standard spending assessment allocated to Gloucestershire. I hope that Gloucestershire county council, with the support of all three main political parties, will apply itself to the provision of nursery education, which it has neglected over the years.

There is no doubt that Labour local education authorities will see that the money goes to education. There are still several large metropolitan authorities where there is a discrepancy in the amount allocated per student for education, particularly in the SIGOMA group—the Special Interest Group of Metropolitan Authorities. Will my right hon. Friend quickly examine that situation with a view to levelling up the imbalance that exists because of the way the formula applies to some education authorities?

I and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions accept that further work is required on ensuring that resources reach those parts of the country and those authorities that are in greatest need. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister announced changes a couple of weeks ago that will start the process of achieving greater equity and fairness across the country, including provision for nursery children on the basis of those funded rather than on the notional numbers in the authority—and, of course, on the actual rather than the notional capital debt that had accrued before 1990. There is still room for improvement, but we are taking those essential steps to ensure that authorities can apply fairly the resources made available to ensure that we have equal standards across Britain.

Is it not already clear that there is a yawning chasm between the Secretary of State's rhetoric about a 5.7 per cent. increase in the average standard spending assessment across the country and likely experience of head teachers in terms of the increase in their schools' budgets that they will receive when the councils set their budgets early next year? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State simply cannot deliver on the commitments that he is giving, and that his letter makes that clear?

I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour or against those councils raising the money to protect education and essential services. They will certainly make a choice at local level to apply resources to the Government's and the people's priority, which is to ensure that resources are given to schools to support their aim to raise standards. That is our policy.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise, however, that Labour councillors face the difficult task—particularly given the changes in SSA and to social services—of having to make cuts in the provision of social services to people in order to deliver improvements in education? As a former education chairman of Norfolk county council, I know that such improvements are important and necessary. Those councillors will need to have a sympathetic hearing from Ministers during the consultation exercise on what in some cases will be dramatic changes in budgeting as a result of changes in the formula. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that representations from those who face such a difficult task are sympathetically heard?

My letter to the leaders of councils said that after 18 years of Conservative Government there would be difficulties in matching all the priorities and demands at local level. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, who is present in the Chamber, is not only sympathetic but has managed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health—whose cold I appear to have caught—to gain the provision of ring-fenced community care funding for the coming year, for an extra 12 months. That will help greatly to deal with the problem, which I accept exists, of matching demand and ensuring that we protect social services and the most vulnerable while at the same time matching the top priority of investing in standards in education.

What recent representations he has received on the provision of higher education facilities in Cornwall. [18756]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a number of representations in recent months either supporting or opposing the university of Exeter's plans to establish a campus in Cornwall.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he recognise that there is popular demand for a university campus college in Cornwall, as demonstrated last night by the presentation of a popular petition to the House? The need to provide proper investment in higher education in Cornwall is also demonstrated by the fact that, pro rata, it has the longest waiting list in the country for Open university courses. There are also other reasons to support the request.

My right hon. Friend certainly gave that support. I can recall going a year ago to what one might call inland Cornwall and being shocked by the deprivation that I saw down there: it is one of the poorest parts of these islands. We recognise that higher education and its expansion, and further education and its expansion, can have a dynamic effect on economies in that state. We should like to see every effort made to try to raise those funds; we are barred by statute from telling any institution what it can or cannot do with its funding. We have certainly made inquiries of the Higher Education Funding Council to find out how it regards the project. We wish success to every attempt that is made to raise the sort of money required to expand higher education in Cornwall.

While I welcome what the Minister has said about greater provision for higher education in Cornwall, which will be welcome throughout the west country, does he not realise that it his Government's policy that will penalise areas, particularly Cornwall? He will know, I hope, that average wages in Cornwall are 77.7 per cent. of the average in Great Britain. It is young people from families on lower incomes who will have the greatest difficulty now that the Government have rejected the Dearing recommendations and are about to force those young people, not only to pay tuition fees that will be repaid on a loan, but to pay 100 per cent. of their maintenance grant. It is precisely areas such as Cornwall which will notice first that fewer of their younger people are entering higher education.

It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. Labour Members have known for years that people have been working on rice money, starvation money, which is why we are introducing the national minimum wage. It is why we shall ensure that young people in Cornwall will benefit from the new deal and from training; the new deal will be a tremendous investment. We believe that our proposals for the funding of higher education will increase the pitiably low percentage of young people from lower income families who currently enter higher education.

What steps he is taking to involve small and medium enterprises in the new deal for the young unemployed.[18758]

The involvement of small businesses is critical to the success of the new deal.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. An article in yesterday's Financial Times said that companies are flocking to sign up to the welfareto-work scheme. More than 50 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom were mentioned in the article. As the Federation of Small Businesses, which has 100,000 members, supports the welfare-to-work proposals, as my right hon. Friend said, and as most new jobs will be coming through SMEs in the future, will my right hon. Friend ask local employment services and local government offices to give publicity—in the same way as was done in the Financial Times yesterday—through local newspapers and the local media to examples of companies flocking to sign up in our constituencies?

That is a good idea and it is precisely that sort of local marketing—to which I referred—that will be taking place in the new year. We are seeing a growing recognition that the division and corrosion of our communities that are caused by youth unemployment will be solved only through partnership efforts that bring everyone together—local communities, local authorities and local businesses. The level of commitment that we are now seeing shows that they recognise the benefits to business both of getting young people in touch with the world of work and of their being able to enjoy its opportunities and face the responsibilities that go with it. The new deal is good news for businesses as it helps their recruitment effort at a time of growing skill shortages by equipping people and training them to get a job and stay in it.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that many of the schemes that have been tried in the past, both here and overseas, have had the problem of substitution—where employers who were going to take someone on anyway take on someone on a subsidy. As it is to be a six-month scheme starting in April, will the Minister take care to ensure that the tourism industry does not simply decide to use the Government's money—the Treasury's money, the people's money—to subsidise people who would normally be taken on for a six-month period, giving them little in the way of training and thus doing away with all the jobs that would normally be taken by students who try to work during the summer so as to be able to afford to go to university?

The truth of the matter is that now is exactly the right time to introduce a programme such as the new deal, because of the level of unfilled vacancies across the country—320,000 at the last count. That is whole point of the new deal: it can equip young people who would otherwise not have the opportunity to apply for and fill those jobs to do so. It is therefore good for the economy as well as for those young people's future.

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the extent to which the big global players have signed up to support the new deal, but he will be aware that in most of our constituencies—certainly in some rural areas or in inner-city areas—it will be crucial to get large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Minister has given us some good news today, but my impression is that a great deal of work still needs to be done before we can be confident that sufficient numbers will be achieved. Will he ensure that the quality of training in that option is as high as it must be to deliver what young people need and deserve?

Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I met the head of the Basic Skills Agency this morning precisely to ensure that the monitoring and quality assurance of training under all the new deal options ensures that the training given is of the highest standard. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he, too, is doing to encourage small firms to sign up to the new deal and recruit the young unemployed; indeed, such work is an important opportunity and the responsibility of all right hon. and hon. Members. I referred earlier to the importance of partnership in getting the young unemployed back to work; we all have a task to perform in our own communities to help to get businesses on board and open up the opportunities that the young unemployed need.

If he will make a statement on the literacy strategy. [18759]

The national literacy strategy is an ambitious programme for achieving our target of 80 per cent. of 11-year-olds reaching the expected standard for their age in English by 2002.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I speak as a former English teacher. Does my hon. Friend agree that summer literacy schools are one of the most effective ways of bringing literacy—reading and writing—to young people, especially those in disadvantaged communities? Is he prepared to comment on the recent evaluation of pilot projects that were held this summer? Is he aware that in my constituency of Peterborough we held two very successful projects at Bretton Woods community school and John Mansfield school? Those projects will be run again in 1998; will my hon. Friend visit them next summer, meet some of the young people and share with them in their achievement?

Thanks to the east coast main line, during one of my return visits to my constituency on Tyneside next summer I might stop off at Peterborough to visit either of those schools—I know that they did good work this summer. Because of the success of the 50 summer literacy schemes held this year, we are pleased that there will be a tenfold expansion to 500 summer schools to take place next year. That is a positive way of providing new opportunities for young people and ensuring that when they enter secondary education they have the basic skills that they need in being able to read and write effectively.

Does the Minister agree that in formulating a literacy strategy an emphasis on traditional methods is important and welcome, and that there should therefore be no role whatever for the three left-wing academics who observe in a pamphlet that

"within the psycho-semiotic framework, the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct where events are played out"

"Children must learn to position themselves in three interlocking contexts"?

Clearly there is a role for summer literacy schools for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). Many of us on the Labour Benches who entered the House in 1992—I accept that he did not—find it very difficult to take lessons from the Conservatives on reading in our schools when the one programme that they ran to support reading in schools, the reading recovery programme, was scrapped by the previous Government in 1995.

What representations he has received from employers in the (a) tourism, (b) leisure and (c) hospitality industries in respect of the new deal for young unemployed people. [18760]

On 24 November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights took part in a major conference for the tourism and leisure industry on the new deal, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. He tells me that he was delighted by the range of support and the enthusiasm for the new deal among employers in these important sectors. The Employment Service will now talk to 40 leading companies which participated in this event to discuss their involvement in more detail.

I thank the Minister for his response, but does he agree that, in a constituency such as mine—Great Yarmouth—where work in the tourism industry is seasonal and poorly paid, employers taking part in the new deal must recognise that the most important part of the new deal is the training element for young unemployed people in the constituency and throughout the country?

My hon. Friend is right to be worried about the interests of his constituents who may be taking part in the new deal, but I believe that the opportunities that can be provided in the tourism sector will be very important and valuable; it is one of the leading growth sectors in employment. The safeguards for young people participating in the new deal are the formal agreements to be struck between the Employment Service and the employer, the guarantee of training, properly funded, setting the young person on the path to qualification, the continuing monitoring by personal advisers and, in the event that something goes really wrong, the new deal hotline, which will enable participants in the new deal to raise questions about whether they are receiving a proper deal, as I believe that they will.

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on voluntary-aided and denominational schools.[18761]

The Government welcome the part that voluntary schools, including voluntary-aided and denominational schools, play in the education service. Our new school framework will safeguard their ethos and will enable them, and all other schools, to raise standards and improve the quality of the education that they offer.

Does the Minister accept that voluntary schools and denominational schools have for many decades served as the leaven in the dough to raise educational standards and the standards of pastoral care provided by our education service, and that the resources provided by the Churches in this country to supplement the public purse have been beneficial to every child in every school in the country? Will he assure me that denominational schools are safe in the Labour Government's hands?

I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments about the valuable role that Church schools play. In the consultation exercise following the publication of the White Paper, "Excellence in schools", we were able to reflect on proposals made by the Church education authorities. As a result of their representations, we now have before the House a Bill which has their support. We believe that, as a result of the amendments that we made in the light of their representations, we now have a far better Bill.

How many Muslim schools have indicated a desire to enter the voluntary-aided sector? What criteria would they have to meet before such admission?

A number of applications are before Ministers at the moment, including some from promoters from the Muslim sector. As I am the Minister who has to consider those applications, it would be wrong for me to make a statement this afternoon. I can say, however, that they will be judged on the criteria that we apply to all other applications.

May I press the Minister a little further? As Church of England and Roman Catholic schools are integrated in the public sector, should not similar provision be made for Muslim schools and for other schools with alternative curricula, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools? Would the Minister be willing to meet representatives of the Third Sector Schools Alliance to explore this possibility, and to explain what the obstacles to their entry to the public sector are? Is it not wrong that schools should be obliged to stay in the private or voluntary sector when they would like to be integrated with the public sector?

I understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman. There is no dogmatic opposition to schools entering the maintained sector; all schools will be subject to the same criteria. In particular, they will have to meet the demands and requirements of the national curriculum. One of the difficulties experienced by the types of school mentioned by the hon. Gentleman has been their failure to meet the terms and requirements of the national curriculum.