What plans he has to extend student loan provision to students studying part time on equivalent undergraduate courses. [24179]

There are no current plans to extend student loans to part-time students, most of whom are employed and are therefore able to support themselves. However, for the first time, we are making significant sums available to part timers through access funds.

Given that the Government have accepted the Tories' spending plans for the next two years, can the Minister explain why he is unable to give an assurance that part-time students should be able to access student loans in the life of this Parliament, given that the Government's Teaching and Higher Education Bill, currently in another place, makes exactly that provision?

The Bill makes that provision because we have a great deal of sympathy with the evidence that is emerging on behalf of part-time students, and we are ensuring that they are adequately provided for so that they may undertake and complete the courses that they desire to complete. However, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that his plan—which, of course, will once again be paid for out of the magic penny that the Liberals are always spouting on about—will result in payments being made that will be a deadweight because, as he must have heard me say, most part-time students are already employed. That is why Lord Dearing did not recommend such a measure in his inquiry into further education.

I welcome the Minister's assurance on the widening of access to loans, but may I ask that the Department continues to keep the matter sympathetically under review? I draw his attention especially to the increasing numbers of part-time students who are studying in the new universities, and to the courses that they are fulfilling. It is important—especially given the many women on such courses—that access to, and encouragement to serve on, those courses, continues.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are fully aware of the important part that part-time study plays in lifelong learning. That is why we have doubled access funds to £36 million and extended provision to accommodate part-timers.

Is the Minister aware of efforts by the Select Committee on Education and Employment to find ways of accelerating and increasing the amount of genuinely private funding that might be used to fund student loans? Does he agree that, if such efforts were successful, more money might be provided for access funds and for higher education? Will the Department for Education and Employment undertake to support any such efforts?

We shall always examine such evidence and we are keen for private enterprise to play a much greater part in ensuring that its employees receive every opportunity for education at all levels. The best firms in the country are already doing so.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the establishment of the university for industry. [24180]

We have made substantial progress with the help of the working group chaired by David Brown of Motorola Ltd., and we shall produce further details in the forthcoming White Paper on lifelong learning and the prospectus for the university for industry, which will be published in March.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the right degree of support, the university for industry will rank alongside that other achievement of a Labour Government, the Open university? Can he assure me that the creation of the essential starting point, the multi-media learning network, is being satisfactorily progressed by the design and implementation advisory group?

I can give that assurance. The university for industry will make a major contribution to equipping our nation with the skills required to sustain growth with stable inflation, and to do so in a new century, when new skills and the ability to take advantage of information and communication technology will be at the forefront of our prosperity and our ability to compete.

How much his Department has spent on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. [24181]

The Department has spent some £534,000 on publicising the Government's proposals for the reform of higher education. That covers our response to the report of the national committee of inquiry into higher education under Sir Ron Dearing—Lord Dearing—and the new arrangements for financial support for students in higher education.

How does the Under-Secretary justify a reform that will cost the poorest students £2,000 a year more than better-off students during an academic year?

We undertook to inform everybody who needed the information about the details and the truth of the new funding arrangements that we intend to put in place. We think that that is a proper expenditure of money. The evidence of the success of our approach is seen in the rising number of applications for undergraduate places for next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some students are labouring under the misinformation and scaremongering spread, in part, from those on the Opposition Benches? Does he agree that that small sum spent to tell the truth, so that students are not put off doing courses, is money well spent?

It is interesting that the nature of that scaremongering and misinformation that has come so often from some quarters is changing rapidly. I understand that the shadow Secretary of State for Education last night informed the audience at a debate on the future of higher education that he thought that our proposals for student loans would be much fairer than the arrangements put in place by the previous Government.

Is not the only reason why the Minister has had to spend so much money on advertising details of his proposals to students, the Government's hasty and ill-conceived response to the Dearing commission report? Does he agree that the proposals will do nothing to improve the funding crisis left by the previous Government because of the failure to passport the additional money from student fees to higher education, and that we shall end up with a higher education system that has two tiers—ivy league universities and bargain basement universities?

No, I do not agree. I am proud that this Government had the guts to make a decision—something that is not a characteristic of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Has not the publicity served its purpose well, and have not potential students responded? The applications to Anglia polytechnic university in my constituency are up on this time last year, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming that.

My hon. Friend is right. Applications are rising quickly. The Jeremiahs and doom-predictors have been proved wrong. Students know that a degree brings them great opportunities in life and enables them to earn more when they are working. That is what we intend higher education to do. We shall see that the money is in place so that every student with the qualifications to take up those places can do so.

What plans does the Department have to pay the fourth-year tuition fees of students undertaking an honours course at a Scottish university, thus ending the present discrimination against English and Welsh students? Is the Minister aware of the harmful effect of his policy on university policy?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him so on several occasions, we are urging Scottish universities to recognise the great worth of two-year A-level courses in England and Wales, and allow students with good grades into the second year of four-year degree courses at Scottish universities. That is a perfectly good arrangement, and we shall try to ensure that it works properly.

Is not the truth that the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) was seeking that the student from a high-income background will pay an extra £3,000 for a three-year degree course under the Government's proposals, while a student from a low-income background will pay an extra £5,265 for the same three-year degree course? Will the Minister now answer the question posed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier): why do the Government believe that low-income students should face a steeper increase in the cost of their degrees than their contemporaries from more privileged backgrounds?

The shadow Secretary of State does not understand that students from low-income families will not be required to pay tuition fees. He adds up the sums in an incredibly idiosyncratic way. That is why he keeps jumping up and down in his seat. The money will be there for every student who wishes to take up a place at university and who requires it. The payback arrangements for such loans are good. People will take up such loans, and the proof of that is in the present application rates.

What plans he has to consolidate 14 to 19-year-olds' qualifications into a single framework. [24182]

My remit letter to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority asked it to develop our manifesto commitment to a coherent and high-quality national framework for 14 to 19-year-olds. Our consultation paper, "Qualifying for success", which progresses that manifesto commitment and the earlier Dearing report on 16 to 19-year-olds, will be reported on by the QCA in February.

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we should establish a parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications? If so, will he confirm that the present divide in the gold standard between A-levels and advanced national vocational qualifications is destroying that parity of esteem, and it would be better to combine the two?

He knows all about it—he went to Eton.

I cannot top my hon. Friend's answer.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have inherited a real problem from the previous Administration as a result of the pressure on young people from training and enterprise councils—many of which are trying to do a good job, like my own in Calderdale and Kirklees, which is doing an excellent job? Over the years, young people have been pushed towards fast training that leads to qualifications so that TECs get their money, and away from longer-term, more expensive training, such as the new apprenticeship schemes? Can we do something about that quickly?

I am happy to say that the new standards council that we are establishing, and our review of NVQs, will help us to ensure that high-quality qualifications are available whichever route people take post-16, as will our commitment in the legislation presently in the other place to ensure that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to education and training in order to gain a qualification while at work, so that they, too, can take their place in the labour market of the future.

What representations he has received concerning the activities of training and enterprise councils. [24183]

I regularly receive representations about TECs on a variety of issues.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government are in danger of giving the impression that they are so blinkered by the limited welfare-to-work programme—money and priority are only for that—that they are squeezing out all other topics? Small and medium enterprises in my area tell me that their problems are recruitment and skills shortages—something that the Surrey business link identified in its latest survey. Will he particularly commend the Surrey TEC, which has involved more than 1,000 companies in its modern apprenticeship programme?

Although I have no hesitation in congratulating the Surrey TEC on its achievements—and they are great achievements; more than half the new starts in Surrey are modern apprenticeships, and that is a model that every TEC should follow—I have to dispute the assertion that the right hon. Lady made at the beginning of her question. This year, there will be 72,000 new, modern apprenticeship starts—10,000 more than under the present arrangements. We value them, and want them to expand and continue.

I invite my hon. Friend to reconsider the relationship between TECs and regional development agencies. At the risk of offending his national sensitivity, may I suggest that he follows the Scottish model? Would it not enable the RDA to pursue a coherent economic development strategy, including a skills strategy, within the regions?

My right hon. Friend raises some interesting issues. We are looking at every possible option. We want our training to be the best in the world, and for that we must have the most efficient means of brokering, commissioning and paying for training. I am interested in what he says. I shall look at it carefully. We are looking at the models not only in Scotland but in Wales, where they seem to work quite well.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members were told this morning that training and enterprise councils are required to keep approximately £70 million in reserve, but they would like to keep £170 million in reserve? Yet, in a written answer to me today, he accepted that more than £278 million is in reserve, which he says will be used for Government priorities. Will he assure the House and the TECs that that money will not be directed simply to bolstering the new deal but will be used for the benefit of TECs in their areas?

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that that money will be used for the best possible projects, which will strengthen competitiveness and the employment infrastructure in the areas that the TECs serve. I want it to be spent on an array of new projects. We have some interesting ones in mind. Perhaps, over a cup of tea, I could talk to him about them.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal in pathfinder areas. [24184]

I commend all those who have involved with the 12 pathfinder projects for the new deal. In the first three weeks alone, 5,300 young people were invited for interview. Three thousand young people entered the gateway, of whom half have been placed for jobs, and hundreds of young people who are not yet entitled to enter the new deal have presented themselves at jobcentres wishing to be part of it. That is a tremendous start, of which we can all be proud.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging response about this excellent scheme.

I am happy to give that assurance. The gateway, with basic social and educational skills provisions, the specific advisers and mentors for the young people concerned, and the commitment that every young person will get education and training to an approved qualification, all demonstrate our commitment to ensuring that this is not just a makeweight scheme but a real programme that equips young people to take their place in the labour market and helps to meet the skills shortage referred to earlier.

Have the pathfinder areas thrown up for the Secretary of State the people who are paying the real cost of the new deal? Will he explain to older people in my constituency, many of whom have made 200, 300 or 400 applications for jobs, why they are now told that their job clubs are to be cut back because of the costs of the new deal? Given that unemployment is falling, is not the money originally set aside for the new deal more than ample? How does he explain to my constituents that they are being sacrificed to the Chancellor's need to build up a war chest to win the next election?

I should like to inform the hon. Gentleman's constituents why they have been unemployed for so long under a regime that the hon. Gentleman helped to prop up. I should like to explain to young people in his area how we shall ensure that they do not become the long-term unemployed adults of the future and that they have the opportunity that has been denied to middle-aged people. I should like to explain, as the Chancellor said, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Disability Rights said on 5 January, how we shall extend the scheme to older unemployed workers, giving them the qualifications and skills that they need.

Has it yet been possible to evaluate the adequacy of the allocation for the gateway period? Will my right hon. Friend keep that matter under review, as £260 for up to four months seems a small amount?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall keep the matter under review. It is important that the gateway is a quality entry into the new deal and that we let no one down in terms of evaluating the first 12 pathfinder programmes. It was appropriate to pilot the programme first to ensure that we learn the lessons and apply them when we roll the programme out for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Let me return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Does the Secretary of State not recognise that, in the past week, many hon. Members on both sides of the House will have received a letter from their local employment service telling the same story about the cuts in job club placements and in job plan workshops for people who are not eligible for the new deal? Is it not clear that there will be two different categories of unemployed people: those with the extra expenditure of the new deal; and more than a million people who will receive less assistance in the future than they received in the past?

The hon. Gentleman's last assertion is incorrect. A higher proportion of adult unemployed will have access to job clubs and similar measures than is the case now. Unemployment dropped by 28 per cent. in the past year; job clubs are being reduced by only 15 per cent.; and the take-up at job clubs has been only 87 per cent. With the 750 remaining job clubs, it is therefore possible to do a better job more effectively and in the best interests of unemployed people, so that they get a job rather than attend a club.

What recent representations he has received relating to the Government's programme for welfare into work for 18 to 25-year-olds. [24185]

We continue to receive many supportive comments and suggestions, including from businesses, the voluntary sector, training providers and, most importantly, from young people, whose reaction to the introduction of the new deal in the pathfinder areas has been very positive.

All the agencies that work with the young unemployed agree about the new deal's huge potential to make a real difference, but there is widespread criticism of the element of compulsion within the scheme. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, by insisting on compulsion, he is sending out a message that the new deal will be done to the unemployed rather than for the unemployed? Could he not put his faith in the genuine quality of the options being offered as a guarantee of the new deal's success? The tiny minority who say no to offers of genuine help need more help, not more compulsion.

We have had the answer, in that more than 3,000 gateway interviews have been conducted and we have not had to initiate sanctions in a single case. Moreover, more than 500 young people have volunteered to go on the new deal programme early. So far, all the evidence from the pathfinder interviews is that young people understand very well the difference that the new deal will make for them and for their prospects of employment.

How does the Minister square his pre-election pledge of getting 250,000 young people off the unemployment register with the fact that only 122,000 people are currently on that register? If he accepts those figures, will he tell us why the Chancellor has allocated a disproportionately large amount of resources to getting young people off the unemployment register under the new deal? Younger people are more mobile, better educated and more able to get a job. It is the older, long-term unemployed who need the resources.

I make no apology for the attention that this Government, unlike the Conservative Government, have given to the particular needs of the young unemployed. Unemployment levels among young people are twice those in the rest of the work force. A terrible price is paid as a result of persistent unemployment among the young. It damages people's lives and the lives of their families, and leads to the corrosion of communities. The statistics show not only that 120,000 young people have been out of work for more than six months, but that 15,000 pass the six-month threshold every month.

What role does my right hon. Friend envisage for collaborative partnerships between employers and further education colleges in delivering the quality training that is such an important component of welfare to work?

A very important role. The hallmark of the new deal is the provision of quality training in every option, so that young people gain the recognised qualifications that will not only get them into a job, but will help then to progress in employment. One of the most exciting and innovative aspects of the new deal is that colleges and other training providers will work in partnership with employers to open up opportunities to young people who have previously been denied them.

What plans he has to introduce a new national curriculum for primary schools within the next five years. [24186]

We plan to introduce a revised national curriculum from September 2000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for State announced plans on 13 January to give primary schools more time to focus on literacy and numeracy for the next two academic years.

Does the Minister agree that, in the past few years art, music and sport have been squeezed out of the curriculum? Are there any plans to bring those subjects back into the curriculum? I visit quite a few primary schools, and they all say that those subjects have been squeezed out because of the limited time allowed in the curriculum.

I am not sure that those subjects have been squeezed out: they have not been dropped from the national curriculum. Those and the other core and foundation subjects have a place, and are taught in schools. Long may that remain so, because the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman referred are important, and are part of a broad and balanced curriculum for our children.

Does the Minister agree with me and with the primary school teachers in my constituency who responded to the White Paper that the primary curriculum has been overloaded and prescriptive? They wanted more flexibility, and more time to concentrate on literacy and numeracy, which is what the Secretary of State's proposed in his recent announcement.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the message that we have received from teachers and parents. Parents made it clear in their response to the White Paper that their overriding priorities were, quite rightly, literacy and numeracy. The proposal that my right hon. Friend announced last week will enable teachers to exercise their professional judgment. In delivering that broad and balanced curriculum, they will now have the freedom to concentrate on literacy and numeracy. If those skills are taught before the end of key stage 2, children will have greater access to the broad curriculum when they reach secondary school.

I agree that it is desirable for the national curriculum to focus on the essential core, as was always the intention, but why will the Government not publish the results of key stage 2 tests at the end of children's primary education: tests against that curriculum? Does the Minister recollect that, last March, the Secretary of State pledged a future Labour Government to national publication of the test results—not local publication by local education authorities, but national publication by the Department? Why are the Government breaking that pledge?

The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I thought that he was going to congratulate the Government on publishing key stage 2 test results a full two months earlier than his party did when in office.

Nationally?

They will be published nationally, so that everyone will be able to see how local authorities and schools are performing. I understand that the local authority figures will be published next week, and that the others will be published when they are available. We always said that they would be put on the internet.

What measures the Government are taking to ensure that children of school age attend school regularly. [24189]

All pupils need to attend school regularly if standards are to be raised and if young people are to gain an adequate grounding for higher education, training or employment. We are supporting locally devised projects to a value of £22 million in 119 English local education authorities under the improving attendance and behaviour category of the standards fund for 1998–99. We are also consulting widely on detailed new guidance for schools and LEAs on attendance issues.

I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that those who are away from school without good reason can become marginalised? How may the new social exclusion unit be able to help the problem?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those who leave school without qualifications are excluded from so much else in life. Some of the saddest figures relate to those who become offenders and appear in court while they are of school age. Six in every 10 of them have been persistent truants or excluded from school.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the governors and teachers of Kinnerley primary school, which came top of the league in Shropshire this year? That included attendance figures. Will she ask how on earth the teachers and governors of Shropshire schools—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the Minister would pay attention and listen to my question.

The hon. Gentleman's closing comments are a strange reflection on a Government who have just put more extra money into education than his party's Government ever managed to do. I am happy to congratulate the school in his constituency, and all the schools elsewhere that take local action with well-devised projects to reduce truancy and ensure good attendance.

What measures have been taken to enhance school security for 1998–99. [24191]

The Government are making available an extra £22 million in 1998–99 to improve security in schools in England.

Is the hon. Gentleman sure of the numbers?

Absolutely, yes; it is two times 11, I think. That sum is in addition to the £6 million provided through our new deal for schools.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that a secure environment is essential for learning and for teaching, and that vandalism is far too common in our schools? May I assure him that all the schools in my constituency in Monmouthshire will greatly welcome the Government's commitment to allocate additional resources and specifically to improve school security?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's questions. This year, Monmouth has received some additional resources to help with school security. We have to put the interests of children and school staff first, which is why it is vital for the Government to ensure that they have a secure environment during school hours.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it would be even better if seven times £8 million pounds were spent to help secure our schools. Do the Government have any plans to encourage local education authorities to visit some of the schools in their area to test security? It is all very well for schools to make an assessment of their own security needs, but parents would be reassured if an independent assessment of schools' security needs were made urgently.

This is an important matter, about which I am sure all hon. Members are concerned. The working group on school security is still considering the matter, and I will draw to its attention the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that parents feel confident about the school environment in which their children spend many hours a day.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the particular problems faced by schools in rural and semi-rural areas? Although they may not have the same order of problems, they still—because of isolation—need to be secure. Will he ensure that moneys reach the more rural schools? Anything he can do to ensure that that happens will be welcomed.

I assure my hon. Friend that, when we make our decisions on allocating money for school security under phase 2 of our new deal for schools—which will have a school security element—we will be conscious not only of what are perhaps to many people the more obvious needs of schools in more urban and built-up areas but of the specific needs of isolated rural schools. All schools need a secure environment. Although it is important that schools do not become fortresses, we have to get the balance right and ensure that our children receive education in a secure and safe environment.

What plans he has to help tackle the backlog of repairs to schools within the Lewes constituency. [24192]

As a result of the Budget statement on 2 July 1997, we expect that an additional £2 billion will be spent through our new deal for schools. Moreover, in 1997–99, East Sussex local education authority will receive a capital allowance of over £21 million to support building improvements.

I am grateful for that answer. However, does the Minister realise that, after 18 years of underfunding by the previous Conservative Government, schools in my constituency—indeed, across East Sussex—have a huge backlog of basic maintenance and repairs? Although the news that he has given us is welcome, the problem will not be solved. Does he realise that many small village schools have real, specific and considerable needs even though they are rarely at the top of action lists? I am thinking of village schools in my constituency such as, for example, Wivelsfield, Newick and Upper Dicker. What comfort can he offer to them? Will he press the Prime Minister and his other colleagues to lift capping, so that local authorities can do the job that they know they want to do?

The very important element of our new deal for schools funding is that it is making grant available to local authorities and to schools for building purposes. As it is grant, it will not count against a local authority's cap, making the capping regime irrelevant in the new deal. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that 15 schools in his own constituency are covered by East Sussex's application for the second phase of new deal funding. If that application were to be successful, it would make a very real difference to the quality of education that children in his constituency are receiving. We are confident that, with the new deal phase 2 for our schools, we will provide a quality learning environment, which we believe will play a vital part in driving up standards in our schools.

Given that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) has raised specific questions about local education authority schools such as those in East Sussex, what is the Minister's response to the letter sent only yesterday to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, who lists East Sussex as an LEA threatening cuts? The letter lists other LEAs, many of them Labour-controlled, that will not be spending all their additional allocation on education and schools, and states:

"the additional £835 million for education in next year's Budget is not going to find its way into schools, despite the Government's declared wishes."

I join the hon. Lady in condemning East Sussex for failing to pass on the money that it has been given by the Labour Government, which we believe should be spent in the schools of East Sussex. However, I am sure that she will be aware that East Sussex is under Conservative control, so she needs to make representations to her political colleagues in East Sussex and urge them to ensure that the money that the Labour Government have given East Sussex—

No, they have not given it.

They have given it. East Sussex has the money, but Conservative councillors there are refusing to pass it on. New deal funding is grant so it does not count against the local authority's cap.

What assessment he has made of the out-of-school child care initiative. [24194]

In 1997, the Government commissioned a third evaluation of the out-of-school child care initiative to assess the extent to which schemes have become financially viable and to examine the factors affecting their viability. The report was published on 22 January and a copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

I welcome the Government's commitment to double funding for the out-of-school child care initiative, but can my hon. Friend assure me that more efforts will be made to ensure that resources reach the poorest and most disadvantaged communities with the worst deprivation?

My hon. Friend expresses his characteristic concern for the most disadvantaged of his constituents. The previous Government would support provision under the out-of-school child care initiative only when a scheme could demonstrate that it would be self-sustaining within a short period. Only this morning, I discussed that and other child care issues with representatives of training and enterprise councils. They want more attention to be given to developing local capacity in deprived areas over longer time scales and to supporting parents in low-income households to meet the costs of child care. I fully recognise the force of what my hon. Friend and the TECs have said.

What reports he has received on the progress of the new deal pathfinder in the black country. [24195]

I have received weekly reports on the new deal pathfinders, including the one in the black country. I was pleased to visit Dudley last month. It is early days, but the programme has made an encouraging start, and I thank my hon. Friend for his active involvement locally.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know that last Friday I visited Dudley zoo, which has just taken on one of my constituents, a young man who had been unemployed for seven years. How can we further involve small and medium-sized enterprises such as Dudley zoo in the new deal?

When I visited Dudley, I met representatives of business, including small businesses. There will be an active marketing campaign, locally and nationally, to get as many employers as possible signed up. We are also working through the sectoral business associations and bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses have pledged their support to ensure that as many small businesses as possible are involved. My hon. Friend recounted the story of his constituent, and such instances bring home just what a difference the new deal will make to people's lives. That is why we need it and why it is such a good programme.

Does the Minister accept that unemployment rates in Dudley, as elsewhere in the country, are coming down fast, as the Secretary of State said recently? As a consequence of Conservative policies, unemployment fell by 28 per cent. over the past year. Is not the real problem in Dudley and elsewhere that employers are increasingly facing skills shortages? Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Department will keep under review the amounts spent on the new deal and whether some of that money could be better used by TECs to help with more skills training? Otherwise we shall have the ludicrous situation of money being spent where it is not needed and not spent where it is needed.

Despite the welcome fall in unemployment, far too many people are unemployed—especially young people—and for everyone who remains unemployed, that unemployment is 100 per cent. They need all the help that the new deal will provide. We are implementing the right programme at the right time for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. When the labour market is tightening and firms are finding it difficult to recruit workers with the skills that they need, a programme that equips young people with training and skills so that they can help to fill those vacancies will not only benefit the young unemployed but will be good for business.

What steps will be taken to ensure that young people with exceptional needs are able to enter the new deal early if they choose to do so. [24196]

We are committed to ensuring that the new deal meets the individual needs of all young people, including those with special needs, who will be offered the opportunity to join it early. That includes people with disabilities, those with literacy or numeracy problems, lone parents, ex-offenders and others at a particular disadvantage.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The scheme that is being developed to deliver the new deal in the Medway towns will ensure that those opportunities exist. Special advisers to the scheme through the gateways opportunity, including Members of Parliament who are members of the planning team, will experience some of those opportunities. That is why I cannot wait to join the Army in the woods for a 36-hour survival course to develop my motivation and team skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new deal has given opportunities at a local level—that is the important point—to build strong, wide-reaching partnerships involving the private and voluntary sectors, the Employment Service and the public sector to deliver the training and skills that our young people require for the 21st century?

After his magnificent result at the general election, my hon. Friend should be offering survival courses. He may receive applications from Conservative Members who are already panicking at the thought of the next election. I am delighted by the quality of partnership that is being developed for the new deal in the Medway towns. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his commitment, to Linda Russell, who has led the process for the Employment Service, and to all the businesses, TECs, local authorities and voluntary organisations that have responded so positively to the Government's challenge to give better support to unemployed people.

The Minister was clearly the first person in the Labour party to benefit from the new deal. I am glad that he is being less aggressive in response to questions on the new deal. Members of Parliament have received letters from the Employment Service telling us what is happening. We are grateful for that, but we are panic-stricken because the Employment Service is dismantling itself before the new deal has come in. It will be needed to help the most difficult cases to come off the unemployment register. Will the Minister please look again at the cuts to the Employment Service currently being announced?

The hon. Gentleman is part of the old deal. Unemployment is 28 per cent. lower than a year ago. It must be sensible to scale back certain provision against that background. Funding per person is largely unchanged. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that there is a sensible case for what we are doing given that job clubs are only being used to 87 per cent. of capacity. However, where local partnerships think it appropriate, more job club places can be provided. Employment Service district managers are consulting Members of Parliament and locally. It would be preferable for Members to respond constructively rather than using the opportunity for opportunistic political point scoring.

Does the Minister recognise the concerns expressed by many in our ethnic minority communities, which traditionally suffer disproportionately high unemployment, that their young people will have difficulty gaining access to the high-quality employment option under the new deal? Does he recognise that such concerns are often fuelled by scepticism as a result of poor experiences on schemes under the previous Administration? Does he have any plans to deal with such issues?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the grievous reality of unemployment among members of ethnic minorities—particularly young people. Unemployment among people from ethnic minorities is running at twice that among white people—15 per cent. as against about 7 per cent. Unemployment is higher among young people across the range of ethnic minorities. For young black people, unemployment is running at 34 per cent. The most chilling statistic is that, among black men in London aged between 16 and 24, unemployment is 45 per cent. The previous Government left behind a shameful situation.

What representations he has received recently from the alliance for regional aid; and if he will make a statement. [24197]

I met representatives of the alliance for regional aid in August last year. We discussed the reform of the European structural funds and the criteria for their allocation. The Government are seeking arrangements which are fair, affordable, efficient and durable, and which take due account of United Kingdom regional interests.

The alliance for regional aid is worried that £1,000 million a year, which we have been receiving from the European regional development fund under objective 1 and objective 2 assistance, may begin to disappear. One of the factors involved is the unemployment figures that are presented to the European Union. We still operate on the fiddled method that the Conservatives introduced. It must therefore be made clear to the EU that unemployment is higher than the official record shows. We might need to adjust the figures to show that that is so.

The Government have been making the point about the importance of accurate unemployment statistics. We are seeking to re-establish public credibility and confidence in unemployment figures, which were so shamefully undermined by successive changes and fiddles when the Conservatives were in government. The review has properly been conducted by the Office for National Statistics at arm's length from the Government precisely so that it could not be subject to any charge of political interference or manipulation—nor has it been. My hon. Friend and the House can expect an announcement from the Office for National Statistics in the very near future. In the meantime, the Government will continue to fight for a fair deal for the United Kingdom regions in our negotiations with Europe.

What steps he plans to take to ensure that schools are able to timetable for teaching an hour a day of literacy and numeracy. [24198]

How many representations he has received on his recent proposals for more school time to be devoted to teaching numeracy and literacy, and if he will make a statement. [24199]

We announced earlier this month that schools will have time to devote an hour each day to literacy and to numeracy. From September, primary schools will no longer be required to follow the current prescribed programmes of study in the national curriculum subjects of art, design and technology, geography, history, music and PE. We have also published our plans to free teachers from unnecessary bureaucracy and give them more time to teach the basics.

I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Since 1 May she has made it clear that we shall demand the highest standards from our schools, but also that we shall give our teachers and governors the tools with which to deliver such standards. In the context of literacy and numeracy, books are an important element in the ability to deliver high standards. What plans do we have to increase access to and use of books in our schools?

The whole House will have been pleased to hear the announcement made this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that the Government are to provide an additional £23 million for books in schools. That will mean that most schools will receive £1,000 extra to spend on books. When we add that to the £59 million already put into the literacy strategy, we see that the Government are taking action to ensure that we raise standards in the basics of literacy and numeracy. That will be welcomed by all schools and all parents.

Bearing in mind the present low morale in the teaching profession, will the hon. Lady assure the House that, before the changes are introduced, there will be wide consultation with the profession, in order to allow those changes to work? The move is surely right and proper; none the less, it should be implemented in a way that is comfortable and practicable for schools and teachers.

We shall indeed consult on the proposed changes over the next few months. I know that my right hon. Friend's announcement this morning will also raise morale in classrooms. It shows that the Government are giving teachers the tools to do the job. They are essential partners in our crusade to raise standards, and I know that they will welcome today's announcement