If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for special needs education. [59102]

What proposals he plans to bring forward following the consultation on the Green Paper on special educational needs, "Excellence for all Children". [59107]

Following consultation on our Green Paper, "Excellence for all children: meeting special educational needs", and in the light of advice from the National Advisory Group on Special Educational Needs, we published earlier this month "Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action", stating the practical steps that we shall take to support and promote developments in SEN. The action programme will be supported by funding of almost £60 million in 1999–2000.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. She will be familiar with the excellent work of the Dame Ellen Pinsent school in my constituency. At a recent meeting with parents at the school, I was struck by the number of them who feared that an inclusion policy might result in the school's closure. Will my hon. Friend assure those parents—all parents—of children with special needs that the Government will play no part in forcing the closure of good special schools, or in forcing children with special needs into mainstream schools? Will she assure those parents that any inclusion policy will ensure that they are totally involved in and fully consulted on that policy?

I am delighted to give those assurances. Both my hon. Friend and I have children in our constituencies who attend the Dame Ellen Pinsent school, and I should like to add my warm words about its work. The thrust of the Green Paper on inclusion is to give parents a genuine choice. Many parents currently do not feel that they have the choice of educating their children in a mainstream school because that school is not able to cope with their children. However, not one word in reply to the Green Paper should cause any special school to feel under threat. Parents will retain their right to express a preference for a special school.

I should say also that there is at Dame Ellen Pinsent and other schools so much expertise in their teachers. We want to ensure that that expertise is used not only in special schools but in mainstream schools, to support a wider range of students. Special schools are safe if they are good schools and parents wish to send their children to them, but like all schools, special schools must accept the need to change and to offer high standards for our children.

I recognise what the Minister has just said, but will she make it absolutely clear that special schools that are meeting both parents' needs and the established criteria have a future in the all-inclusive education system, and that the two will work side by side when appropriate?

Exactly. Our motivation is to give choice to parents and students and a good quality of education to every child with special educational needs. I am delighted to have this opportunity to say that not one word that I or other Ministers have said should lead any special school to fear that its future is in doubt. If parents wish to send their children to special schools, they will retain the right to do so. Any change to any school, regardless of whether it is a special school, is subject to local decisions, and it will be even more so in the new framework. I am happy to give those assurances, and am pleased that I have had the opportunity to do so.

I was interested to hear the Minister's reply. In Gloucestershire, there is pressure to close a very good school, Alderman Knight school, which provides an excellent service for children with special educational needs. As the Minister will be aware, many of those children also suffer physical disadvantages. Will she make it clear to all local education authorities that the policy she has just stated to the House is the Government's policy? There is much doubt in LEAs about what that policy is.

There can be no doubt about it on the part of anyone who has read either the original document or the action plan that we have launched subsequently. I shall say again something that I have said many times before: no local authority, no school and no governing body should be quoting anything from either our documents or our words to imply that special schools should close on a point of principle. I do not know the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I cannot be expected to know them. However, there are bound to be changes in the pattern of provision of education in local authority areas as times change and as parents express different preferences.

Of course, there may be occasions when the pattern of provision for children with special educational needs is such that a reorganisation of special needs provision is the best thing. Nothing that I have said suggests that special needs provision should be set in stone, but we are not sending a message that special schools do not have a future. They do have a future because they meet the needs of some parents and pupils, and many of their staff have great expertise that we want to use across the school system.

What assessment has the Minister made of the advocacy services, which are very often provided by the voluntary and charitable sector, to support parents through the statementing process when they are, for example, lodging an appeal? She will know that the service is patchy in parts of the country. Although the Department issues very good written advice about parents' rights, what plans does she have to make sure that there is uniform support and provision for parents going through what, for them, is often a very distressing process?

My judgment is that the advocacy services often provided by voluntaries bodies are excellent and that they support parents at a very difficult time. I am delighted to be able to tell the hon. Lady that, as part of our action plan, we have made funds available for a parent partnership in every local authority area. We have restored a provision that was cut by the previous Government.

The financial resources that we have provided have ensured that that facility will be made available to parents. I have made it clear that I want and expect every local authority to develop parent partnerships to support parents in the way that the hon. Lady described. If, in due course, that has not happened, we shall look for legislative time to give the provision statutory force.

If he will make a statement on progress in securing employer involvement in the new deal for the young unemployed. [59103]

The new deal is making good progress in securing employer involvement, with now nearly 33,000 employers signed up–254 of them in the Swindon district—and with firms of all sizes actively involved in the planning, promotion and delivery of the new deal.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. My constituency has low unemployment, but some young people, and others eligible for the new deal, have real difficulties in returning to work, even with the support of the new deal. For example, they may have communication difficulties or lack some social skills. What advice does my right hon. Friend have for employers so that they might help into work some of the people who are not yet job-ready?

There are a number of ways in which employers can offer extra assistance—for example, through involvement in the design and delivery of the gateway, by encouraging employees to act as mentors, and by offering mock interviews—to help especially disadvantaged young people to get jobs. I am pleased to say that many employers are already doing just that, which is greatly to their credit. Indeed, I know of some in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Will the Minister confirm that nearly 80 per cent. of the companies that have signed up to the new deal have so far failed to recruit a single young new deal participant? In light of that, is it any surprise that employers are losing faith as the Government's elaborate flagship becomes just the latest in a long string of expensive failures?

No, I will confirm no such thing. The 33,000 employers who have signed up to the new deal are testimony to their confidence in it. As the hon. Gentleman is talking about the progress of the new deal, he might like to take account of the fact that, in 18 months, we have reduced youth unemployment to a level lower than it was at any time during the 18 years of the previous Government. What is more, in the six months the new deal has been up and running nationally, youth unemployment has fallen at nearly twice the rate it did in the six months before the general election.

Will the Minister bear in mind that in some parts of Britain there are still pockets of very high unemployment, especially in coalfield areas where the Tories closed the pits? Will he pay special attention to that and ensure that special training centres are set up to mop up the unemployment? If he has time, will he also bear it in mind that towards the end of the year a new deal for jobs will be required for the unemployed hereditary peers? May I suggest that they be found tasks cleaning out the sewers?

I have taken serious note of what my hon. Friend said about hereditary peers and, more importantly, the needs of the coalfield communities. We are looking at the adequacy of the training provision and carefully monitoring the progress of young unemployed people into jobs or, through the other new-deal options, in gaining the skills that they need genuinely to enhance their employability. That is every bit as, if not more, important in coalfield areas, inner cities and estates that were blighted by high unemployment under the Conservatives but which this Government are taking action to help.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most difficult sectors of youth unemployment to place in work is that from the ethnic minorities? Is he aware that 20 per cent. fewer people from ethnic minorities find subsidised employment through the new deal? For example, in Lambeth where half the people on options are from ethnic minorities, only one in four finds subsidised employment. Is it not time the Department started keeping records so that the anomalies can be understood and rectified?

It is because we started keeping records that the hon. Gentleman can ask the question. Under the new deal, we have introduced ethnic monitoring for the first time. In the spirit of co-operation on the part of the hon. Gentleman's party, he might like to refer to the glass as half full rather than half empty. The good news from the early figures is that, so far, ethnic minorities have been moving into unsubsidised jobs at the same rate as the rest of the population.

As for the options, a higher proportion of ethnic minorities are involved in the full-time education and training option and the voluntary sector option and a lower proportion in the employment option and the environmental task force. Of course we are closely monitoring that and looking into the reasons for it; and we shall make any necessary adjustments to the programme to provide full and fair opportunities for ethnic minorities.

If he will make a statement on the College for Educational Leadership. [59104]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our plans to establish a new national college for school leadership at a conference for new head teachers on 20 October. The proposals for the college will form part of the major programme for modernisation of the teaching profession to be set out in a Green Paper to be published before the end of the year. The college is intended to provide heads with the cutting-edge leadership skills they need to drive up standards in schools. We intend to publish a prospectus for the college early next year and the college will be established in 2000.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In the light of the Select Committee's report on the role of head teachers, does he recognise that if we are to overcome the recruitment difficulties, we must make the profession more attractive and respected? Obviously, higher training and a better system of training are one solution, but another would be to provide more systematic mentoring and support from local education authorities and outside bodies.

I pay tribute to the Select Committee report, a task in which my hon. Friend played a major part. It is a very valuable report. As she well knows, it recommends that the Government consider how the college might focus on raising the profile of school leadership, bring cohesion to the training and development of heads and build on existing best practice. One very important element of existing best practice is mentoring, which exists in some schools and is very effective. I very much agree with my hon. Friend that one of the college's objectives will be to find ways of developing the relationship between schools and the wider community, through mentoring and other means.

The college may want to focus on schools that are coasting, particularly in educating 14 to 16-year—olds, so will the Minister repeat the Government's commitment to introducing a progress index that shows the performance of all schools in educating 14 to 16-year-olds-or will there be a climb down? Will the Government publish information only on schools in grades A and B? Would not such a U-turn be evidence of how far the Government are out of touch with the views of secondary teachers around the country?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is making a statement on that later this afternoon. We have been clear throughout—in the face of Conservative opposition—about the need to develop effective value-added data on the basis of which parents can make accurate judgments about the schools that they are considering. We have a pilot project going through that in great detail, and it is our strong intention to develop the value-added data in a way that will assist parents to make the informed judgments that they wish to make.

During oral questions on education and employment, Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable for the Minister to tell the House that there will be a statement on the matter later today. If the Government are going to abandon their previous stated policy of publishing an index of the performance of all secondary schools, the House should be told so now.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the main question is about a college for educational leadership and headship training, which is not what he has asked about. My right hon. Friend is making a statement on the matter later. It will speak for itself.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Order. I cannot take points of order in the middle of questions.

How many representations he has received in respect of the introduction of tuition fees for students attending university; and how many have been (a) favourable and (b) unfavourable to the policy. [59105]

Since the announcement of our initial response to the Dearing report in July 1997, we have received nearly 10,000 letters on the new funding arrangements, in largely three tranches. The correspondence has covered many aspects of the issue, and because of its range has not been classified in the way requested.

Does my hon. Friend understand that, in future years, when there may be an increase in the number of higher education places available, the sons and daughters of the working class or of middle-class people of moderate means will not be able to avail themselves of them because of tuition fees and the abolition of maintenance grants? Will he carry out an urgent consultation with the university authorities and the National Union of Students with a view to reviewing the entire situation, in the light of Labour's traditional policy of free education for all?

We introduced fees to increase and widen participation, which my hon. Friend should agree with. We have also spent considerable additional sums. I am sure that my hon. Friend shares our objectives, particularly as we have built in safeguards to ensure that individuals from lower-income families do not have to pay fees. I am sure that when my hon. Friend goes back to his constituency, he will be at pains to get across to working class families the fact that they will not be paying fees, so that should not be a consideration. We want them to encourage their children to go where they should be—to our universities.

Will the Minister share with the House the reason why the Prime Minister cancelled the meeting that was arranged with students at the university of Strathclyde to discuss tuition fees? And why did the BBC fail, for the first time ever, to carry the story of a demonstration against the Prime Minister on tuition fees?

If the hon. Lady wants to ask the Prime Minister, Wednesday is the right day, not Thursday. The House will be aware that the Prime Minister has many calls on his time, being the particularly accessible Prime Minister that he is. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands.

How many representations have been submitted by or on behalf of adult students? Many adult students do not enter higher education in order to be able to earn more. They may earn the same amount following such education as they did beforehand, but will have sacrificed three years' earnings. Will not they face particular difficulties due to the fee arrangements?

As my hon. Friend is aware, repayments relate to income—unlike under the previous scheme. Any loans to be repaid depend on the individual being in work, and start only when the individual begins earning more than £10,000 a year.

May I express my regret that the Minister could not find time to join me and many others on the platform at the National Union of Students rally last week, where students of all political persuasions condemned the Government for their multiple attacks on student finances? Will he confirm that, significantly, applications from mature students—who know something about debt—were 10 per cent. down this year? Will he explain, not just to me but to many of his hon. Friends, why he did not follow Lord Dearing's advice to keep the maintenance grant in order to increase access to higher education, rather than damage it, as the Government have done?

I find it humorous, to say the least, to be invited to share with the hon. Gentleman the platform of an organisation which the Conservative party at one stage wanted to abolish. We have taken steps this year on the issue of mature students; additional steps will be taken next year. We are alive to difficulties and opportunities.

Was not the introduction of tuition fees a necessary step to restore university funding? Does my hon. Friend agree that the supposed decrease in applications, which many who opposed tuition fees predicted, did not materialise? Will he reassure the House that he will not be following the advice of the recent Fabian Society pamphlet, which was to introduce differential top-up fees so that some institutions can charge higher fees? Is not that the fundamental difference between those of us on the Government Benches and the Conservative party?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is worth recalling that, when the Conservative party left government, university numbers had risen by 40 per cent., but income per unit had fallen by 25 per cent., leaving the universities in a desperate financial situation.

If he will make a statement on implementation of the national literacy hour. [59106]

The literacy hour came into being in September. Three hundred thousand framework documents have been issued, and training for co-ordinators in every school and training materials for every teacher have been provided. We are delighted that the response in schools up and down the country has been tremendous. As with the literacy pilot schemes, there have been great improvements in literacy, phonics and the grammar of children who have been undertaking the literacy hour.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Recently, the chief inspector of schools, Chris Woodhead, offered to intervene on behalf of schools that do not want to implement aspects of the national literacy strategy, including the literacy hour, providing that they can prove to him that their results are good enough. Will the Secretary of State clarify who is in charge of implementation of the literacy hour—the national literacy centre or the chief inspector of schools?

The chief inspector has a very clear role in assessing, through inspection, whether schools are providing the quality and meeting the standards that we have stipulated. His job, therefore, is to assess whether teaching methods are appropriate. If the literacy hour is adapted, so that it allows a school to meet a pupil's particular needs and reach the targets that it, the education authority and the Government are establishing, there is no problem whatever.

The approach is not prescriptive but proactive, ensuring that schools meet the best and that all children, whichever school they attend, will be able to read and write by the time they reach secondary level.

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is extraordinary that Conservative Members oppose the literacy hour? Does that not reveal their wish to avoid teaching most children in primary schools the basics of phonics, grammar and spelling?

My hon. Friend raises an important point, because the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment—for want of a better term—has written about his disagreement with the literacy hour in The Times Educational Supplement.

It is too rigid.

What is rigid about it is that people are being asked to teach phonics, grammar and spelling. We need the Conservatives to tell us now, in public, whether they have abandoned any wish for children in our state schools to have the same opportunities as they buy for their own children in private education.

I assure the Secretary of State that the Conservatives are, of course, committed to improving literacy standards. The issue is whether the Government's literacy hour will achieve that. In Birmingham last month, members of the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers told Professor Barber, the head of the Government's standards and effectiveness unit, that the literacy strategy is pushing teachers to breaking point.

Recent research by Warwick university has suggested that the literacy hour is too long—[Laughter.] Yes it is. Last month the Secretary of State for Scotland supported the launch of an alternative literacy strategy based on research that showed that of a number of literacy programmes, those advocated for the literacy hour gave the worst results. Will the Secretary of State now listen to the voices of academics and teachers, and to his right hon. Friend, and think again?

When is an hour not an hour? When it is only 59 minutes? What a silly comment. We are building the literacy strategy entirely on the experience of the national literacy centres. In a spirit of co-operation, just in case the hon. Lady has forgotten, I remind her that it was her own damn Government that set up the national literacy centres in the first place. We have drawn on the evidence of the centres that her party set up, we have established programmes across the country, and we have learnt that in two years the national literacy framework improved the reading age of children by eight to 12 months.

The programme is working, as is demonstrated by a 10-point increase in the English and literacy standards of those 11-year-olds over the past two years, and it will work in every town and city in the country. As one teacher in Birmingham put it:

"I was determined to be critical of it, but I find I can't be".

Such reservations, of course, have never stopped Conservative Members.

What measures his Department is taking to support parents of young children in disadvantaged areas. [59108]

The Government's early education and child care policies are intended for all families with young children. However, support for family literacy and learning, homestart, and much of the funding for the national child care strategy, recognise social need. That, coupled with the sure start programme, provides a strategy for tackling the legacy of multiple deprivation.

Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure that our anti-poverty strategies stretch across all our cities and communities, so that areas sometimes missed out of anti-poverty work benefit as well?

Will she join me in paying tribute to the work of the Greater Nottingham partnership and Gedling borough council on their parenting initiative in one of the poorest areas of my borough—namely, Netherfield?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we must address deprivation and poverty wherever they exist, and particularly pockets of deprivation in otherwise relatively affluent areas. Therefore, I am particularly pleased that we have embarked on the sure start programme. It will be an area-focused programme, but within pram-pushing distance of families, and therefore closer to the pockets of deprivation. Initiatives such as the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit will ensure an individual approach. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Greater Nottingham partnership and Gedling borough council on their anti-poverty strategy and parenting initiative.

I understand that one way in which the Government seek to support children in disadvantaged areas is through their education action zones. Is every private sector company involved in education action zones going ahead with the bids which have been accepted, or are some of those who indicated their support at the outset now saying that, because of the Government's ambivalence over the involvement of private sector and profit-making organisations in our education system, they may not go ahead with their support?

That is simply not true. Every education action zone has private sector involvement, and that is going from strength to strength in each education action zone. I was at lunch with the leader of one of those education action zones, who was applauding the involvement of the private sector. The Government are also grateful for that growing involvement.

The consultation paper on family policy talked about the important role that health visitors play, and could play in the future, in supporting all parents with very young children. Given that many parents need advice between the birth of a child, when the health service is involved, and the time when a child starts school, when the education system takes over, will my hon. Friend have talks with her colleagues in the Department of Health with a view to enabling health visitors to play that vital role in future?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. I share his view that it is important that we have a co-ordinated approach, across all the professions, to children in their early years. Health visitors have a critical role to play in that regard. That is why we see them playing a crucial role in the sure start project which we will establish in 250 areas across the country. I am involved in discussions with colleagues, such as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, to ensure that health visitors are incorporated—as are other professionals—in the work that we are doing with young children.

If he will make a statement on (a) the administrative expenditure of and (b) peripatetic support provided by, local education authorities. [59109]

The Government's plans for the further development of financial delegation to schools will require local education authorities to keep their administrative expenditure under strict control while at the same time enabling them to maintain essential support services for their schools. A draft of the regulations giving effect to our proposals will be laid before Parliament shortly.

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. Bearing in mind the fact that in dispersed and rural areas, such as Cornwall, the cost can be great, will the Minister assure the House that the cost of providing education services peripatetically—such as services for visually impaired or hearing-impaired pupils—are fully reflected in the allocation formula for local education authorities across the country?

I am aware of the position in the hon. Gentleman's county, where a large number of children have special educational needs statements and there is a strong peripatetic service. I can assure him that local authorities will be able to retain funding for low-incidence SEN disabilities, and that nothing we have decided on so far should disturb the arrangements to which he referred.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be delighted to know that in my constituency, the central retention budget, at about £139 per head, is one of the lowest in the country. However, having such a low centrally retained budget creates certain problems for a local authority—for instance, when bidding for the private finance initiative for schools. Will my hon. Friend look into the problems that local authorities may experience when the centrally retained budget does not allow for enough in-house legal and design service expertise to produce a bid, which may disadvantage them? Will she study ways in which other money might be made available to such authorities?

It is for Brent to decide how it conducts its business, but I have not noticed a lack of interest, enthusiasm or activity on the part of local education authorities in proposing PFIs to the Department. Those are coming in in great numbers and we welcome that. Of course, Brent can buy expertise from elsewhere to prepare its PFI bid if it has not retained sufficient staff to do so itself. I will be happy to discuss that matter further with my hon. Friend outside the Chamber, if that would be helpful.

When the Minister studies local authority expenditure on education, will she take careful account of the answer given by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) to the previous question, in which she recognised that otherwise affluent areas contain pockets of deprivation. At a school such as Watchetts county primary in my constituency, which is a pioneer in, for example, after-school clubs, 60 per cent. of pupils are statemented or have special educational needs. Will she take account of that and lobby her ministerial colleagues in the Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that no further cuts are made in provision for shire counties? The only effect of such cuts would be further damage to schools. While the Minister is on her feet, will she say how she can possibly justify the discourtesy that we were shown in an earlier answer, when it was announced that the Secretary of State would not make a statement to the House but would once again bypass it and make one elsewhere?

The hon. Gentleman has a cheek, as a Conservative Member, talking about reductions in education funding. Having said that, I entirely accept that there are constituencies in shire and city areas which contain pockets of deprivation, but they are small pockets compared with some other local authorities, or indeed, constituencies within them. Of course, when we allocate money to local authorities we take into account the needs of all children in all constituencies and local authorities. The way in which local authorities allocate that money to schools is their decision. From my experience I know that the right thing for local Members of Parliament to do is to campaign and lobby at local authority level to ensure that the needs of their constituency are met. The greatest advantage under this Government is that there is a larger pot of money to go at.

What support he provides for areas undertaking school reorganisation to remove surplus places. [59110]

We make capital allocations to support cost-effective projects to remove surplus places. We have allocated £40 million for surplus place removal projects due to begin in the current financial year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that Redditch schools are being reviewed with the aim of removing 2,000 surplus places. While I support that aim, it is causing considerable local concern as at least 20 schools will be directly affected and the knock-on effects will cover the whole town. Will he assure me that if the reorganisation plans end up on his desk, he will undertake to get the views of parents, schools and governors throughout the town? Furthermore, as he has recognised the capital implications of such reorganisations, will he assure me that areas such as Redditch will get priority for capital allocation?

I am aware that my hon. Friend's local education authority is still consulting on options for Redditch. That is properly a matter for the authority. If it decides to publish proposals, local people will have an opportunity to object and make their points clear in whatever way they think fit. A decision on any such proposals must be made on the merits of the case, taking account of education, economic factors and the views of local people. I will be happy to listen to and consider carefully all representations that my hon. Friend and her constituents make.

Will the Minister give a simple pledge that no school will close as a result of any reorganisation that may follow a ballot leading to the abolition of grammar schools?

First, as the hon. Gentleman knows, grammar schools are not being abolished. Secondly, grammar schools have nothing to do with school reorganisation to remove surplus places. Thirdly, I will not give a pledge that no school will close as a result of reorganisation to remove surplus places. As he well knows, that is a matter for local education authorities, which will decide how properly to deal with it. I am confident and pleased that LEAs are dealing with the issue in a responsible and forward-looking way, without making party political points as he takes great pleasure in doing.

If he will report progress on the new deal initiative. [59111]

The new deal has taken on board 160,000 young people across the country–50,000 have entered options, 30,000 of whom have entered jobs. In Chipping Barnet, I am glad to say, there have been nearly 2,000 gateway interviews, giving young people hope for the future.

Obviously, I welcome any progress in the reduction of youth unemployment, but is the right hon. Gentleman concerned that the drop-out rate seems to be about 40 to 45 per cent.? Is he inquiring why young people are dropping out and where they are going? Is he in his heart satisfied that this very expensive initiative is the most cost-effective way in which to move people from the dole into gainful employment?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes anything that gets young people off the dole, as the shadow Secretary of State is on record saying that the scheme is a monumental irrelevance. It is certainly not an irrelevance to those 50,000 young people who have found an option. The drop-out rate is not 45 per cent.; cumulatively, it is 19 per cent, which is 6 per cent. lower than for any equivalent programme that was run by the previous Government. If he had been courteous and committed enough to turn up to the meetings in his area to which he was invited, to discuss the new deal and help us to implement it, he might have been a little better informed.

Having examined evidence from the new deal pathfinder areas and from the new deal for lone parents, the Education and Employment Committee, of which I am a member, has highlighted the importance of personal advisers in targeting advice and assistance that is tailored to the individual's needs. We have been heartened by that, particularly in the light of the earlier scepticism about the ability of the Employment Service to undertake that job. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that continuing attention will be given both to the training needs of people in the Employment Service, so that they can undertake that important job, and to the case load, so that the role of personal advisers will continue to be a critical feature of the programme?

I can give that assurance. Indeed, next year, we will be allocating more money to the Employment Service for training to conduct similar gateway interviews for adult unemployed men and women, so that we can extend the advisory service, which has been so successful. The advisory service provides the gateway and ensures that young people are prepared educationally and socially to take jobs—that is why it sometimes takes longer to place the young person in a vacancy. In Australia, a similar system failed precisely because it was used to reduce the dole queue and not to prepare young people for the world of work of tomorrow and to ensure that they had the training and qualifications to do the job.

Does the Secretary of State accept that he will need accurate data if he is to give a progress report on the new deal? Will he confirm that his Department does not monitor even the number of starts on the employment option by employer? When I asked the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities for data on the new deal, I was supplied with information from an incorrect source and an incorrect date—the figures were inaccurate by nearly 350 per cent. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when I requested information on what people in the full-time education and training option were doing, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities asked his officials to collect those data only the day before he replied to me?

I am completely convinced that that last point is simply not true. With further education colleges taking on full-time trainees across the board on a rolling programme—not at the beginning of each term—it is not surprising that data are difficult to come by, but I take on board entirely what the hon. Gentleman says about statistical data and monitoring. We inherited a completely hopeless system of monitoring and evaluation of what was taking place in the service. We are updating it, and EDS has taken on a new contract and is making capital investment. I am determined that we will get the monitoring and statistics right. If any inaccuracies are drawn to our attention, we will deal with them immediately.

The new deal is making progress, and I can see that in my constituency, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to continue that process, we need to ensure that the employers who have become involved are kept involved? There have been some problems with delays in paying money due to employers from the Employment Service. Will he ensure that money is paid when it is due, because otherwise we are likely to lose some employers from the scheme?

I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance. There is no excuse for non-payment and we want to give a lead by preventing the liquidity of small companies from being undermined, as it has so often been, by the failure of larger companies to pay on time. I seem to remember that the previous Deputy Prime Minister was going to do something about that, but never did. We will do something about it, and if my hon. Friend draws it to my personal attention and to that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, we will act immediately.

How many of the temporary classrooms in the Colchester constituency he expects will be replaced with permanent accommodation by 2002. [59112]

I understand that there are 112 temporary classrooms in 47 maintained schools in Colchester. It is for the local education authority and, until April 1999, the Funding Agency for Schools, to decide in consultation with schools what priority to give to replacing temporary classrooms.

I accept that the previous Government left the legacy of all those temporary classrooms, but if the Government want to reduce class sizes, how will the youngsters be accommodated? What priority do the Government give to replacing temporary classrooms? Does the Minister agree that such classrooms are a substandard way of providing accommodation and that the Government are failing a whole generation?

Obviously, I cannot and do not accept that for a moment. I agree that there is a legacy of capital underspending over the past 18 years, which we are setting about repairing. It is for the local education authority to decide how to address the problem and we are encouraging authorities to produce asset management plans to enable them to focus on the best way of lifting the quality of provision in their area. That is the job of Essex LEA, as it is of all other LEAs, and the position on temporary classrooms takes its place within that overall capital strategy that we want to encourage.

If he will make a statement on relations between the state and private school sectors. [59114]

We welcome closer collaboration between independent and maintained schools in raising standards. To promote partnership, we are supporting 47 projects with £600,000 this year, and a further £1 million from April 1999. We established an advisory group to monitor partnerships and build bridges and we accepted all the recommendations in its recent report.

Does my hon. Friend remember the historic occasion last month when she addressed the headmasters and headmistresses conference jamboree and received a standing ovation? Does she think that she received that ovation because the teachers think that we have invented a system of noblesse oblige, subsidised by the state and sanctified with the language of partnership? When more than 50 per cent. of the applicants accepted at Oxford and Cambridge still come from the 7 per cent. of private schools, might it be that an attack on educational inequality needs another dimension, even if ovations become somewhat more muted?

I remember well my visits to independent sector conferences for different reasons, and I was heartened by the response I received from the Headmasters Conference in Jersey. My hon. Friend gave his explanation for that good reception, but I am clear that the conference was pleased to have a Government who wanted to work with it in partnership on a common agenda to raise standards. The conference was heartened by the initiatives that we have set in train for the two sectors to work together and it was pleased that we have committed ourselves to a further £1 million over two years to enhance that work.

The best way to end the disadvantage that some children face in our school system is not to attack others but to ensure that we raise standards in all schools. We are doing that through our literacy and numeracy strategies and through continued investment in the maintained sector. I look forward to continuing the good start we have made in maintaining relationships with the independent sector.

The bottom line of the Government's approach to the private sector in schools is that they have closed the doors of many ancient institutions of learning to the children of those parents who cannot afford to pay the fees. Is not the difference between the two parties that we gave those children a seat at the table, whereas the Minister thinks that they should be content with the crumbs that fall from the table?

If that had been the case, I would not have received a good reception from the HMC when I visited it in Jersey. Under this Government, no school will get the crumbs from somebody else's table. We care about giving every child a chance and the solution is not to give some a ladder into the independent sector, but to be deadly serious about making every school a good one. It is inexcusable that under the right hon. Gentleman's Government, the message given to children from disadvantaged areas was that they should escape from the maintained sector because the Government did not exercise their responsibility for it properly. That will not happen under this Government. Parents can be assured that their children will receive a good quality education without having to leave the maintained sector.

If he will make a statement on the take-up of university places in the current academic year. [59115]

Overall the total number of accepted home applicants has already exceeded the final 1996 figure and is running at just 4,000 below the comparable 1997 figure of nearly 300,000.

What does my hon. Friend's analysis of the take-up of university places this year tell him of the prospects for the Government achieving their aim of increasing the proportion of people from lower-income backgrounds obtaining higher educational qualifications?

Without being complacent, we are clear that the increase we projected of 500,000 additional students in further and higher education by 2002 will be achieved. My hon. Friend knows how keen my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to widen participation and it is clear from an analysis of this year's figures that fears that working-class youngsters would be put off applying to university by the fees have not been realised. The figures have stayed at the same level and we are confident that we will achieve a wider participation.

Does the Minister agree that it is alarming that the number of applications from mature students has slumped for next year? Many such students want the second chance offered by a return to learning, and many have family responsibilities. Will he commit the Government to monitoring the impact of charges imposed to see whether they are having a particular effect either by sector or by type of student? That would allow us to see whether Dearing was right and the Government wrong, as I strongly suspect is the case.

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has ended on such a sour note. We agree that the figures should be carefully analysed. The number of youngsters applying for next year has gone up, and there are several reasons for the drop in the number of mature students. Mature students had the flexibility to move their applications forward to 1997, which was not available to younger students. Other factors are demography—that cohort was 3 per cent. down—greater participation in higher education by some groups, and a stronger labour market. Those factors may explain the numbers, but I agree that analysis is necessary, and I share the hon. Gentleman's ambition to increase the number of mature students.