How many young unemployed people are taking part in the new deal in Birmingham and the west midlands. [64036]

At the end of November, there were just over 10,800 young people taking part in the new deal in the west midlands, 3,000 of them in the Birmingham area.

Those young Brummies who have helped to make the dole queue the shortest for 19 years are delighted with the extra opportunities for training and jobs that the new deal is providing, and they do not understand why the Conservative party would deny them those opportunities. What further steps can the Minister take to assist people with disabilities to make maximum use of what the new deal has to offer?

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the new deal and its benefits for the young people of the west midlands and the rest of the country. A total of 52,500 young unemployed people are now in jobs thanks to the new deal, and of those, 5,500 are young people with disabilities. That is a great tribute to the work being done by all the partners in the new deal and our disability employment advisers. That help is in addition to the extra measures being taken through the new deal for disabled people.

What proportion of those entering the scheme leave for other benefits or disappear from the scheme altogether?

Order. I remind questioners and the Minister that this is a limited question and it relates to the west midlands.

In the west midlands, as elsewhere, the number of those whose destination is unknown having benefited from the new deal is significantly lower than it was under the jobseeker's allowance regime introduced by the Conservative party. When we look at the cohorts of young people passing through the new deal, the number whose destination is unknown is as low as 12 per cent.

I wonder whether Birmingham and the west midlands are experiencing the problem that exists in my constituency, which is that, although the new deal is working successfully, some young people face multiple obstacles to employment. They are people who were previously referred to as being unemployable. They may have had drugs problems, they may be alienated or have been involved in petty crime. We are finding that, for such people, the gateway period is not long enough to prepare them for work. Even if they take up an option—

Order. I must be firm about questions. This is Question Time and the hon. Gentleman must not set the scene in his own constituency. If he wants to do that, he can put a question on the Order Paper. Will he come to his question for the Minister in relation to the west midlands?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister consider extending the gateway period or offering more support for young people in Birmingham and the west midlands who are finding it difficult to succeed properly in the new deal?

It is important to stress that the most disadvantaged young people, including those who have had drug problems, ex-offenders and those with severe literacy and numeracy difficulties, are getting jobs through the new deal. They are being given the help that they need in the gateway period. Of course, although the new deal is working well, it can always be improved. We have a continuous improvement strategy under way and that includes a more intensive use of the gateway services such as that urged by my hon. Friend.

What estimate he has made of the effects on (a) local education authorities and (b) teaching staff of the staging of the last three pay awards for teachers; and if he will make a statement. [64037]

If he will make a statement on his Department's plans for expenditure on teachers for the current year and for each of the next three years. [64038]

The impact of staging the teachers' awards over the past three years has enabled education authorities to meet the pay bill without even further reductions in the provision of services or investment in standards. The impact on teachers has generally been to irritate them. The Government recognise that and have done so in their evidence to the schoolteachers' pay review body for the coming year.

I thank the Secretary of State for that comprehensive answer and, in particular, for his admission that it was his intention to annoy the teachers. He has succeeded. The Liberal Democrats welcome the evidence that the Government gave the pay review body, which intended that this year's pay settlement would not be staged. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is the Government's intention? Does he not feel that it is hypocritical of the Government to then cite the £140.7 million overhang from last year's pay award as an excuse to drive down teachers' pay this year?

The Government have not made a mistake. We have ensured that there are new resources to meet the challenge of the next three years. The school teachers' review body will of course have to take account—it is its job to do so—of the extra expenditure and other factors, such as the target inflation level. It is also the body's job to ensure that it takes account of recruitment and motivation in the teaching profession. We expect it to do that also. In our evidence, we recognised that our intention is not to phase the award. However, we shall have to wait until the award is announced, and consequently make a decision based on the volume of cash and percentage increase recommended by the body.

Does the Secretary of State accept that staging over the past three years has effectively resulted in a 2.5 per cent. cut in teachers' salaries? Will not the first 2.5 per cent. of any increase recommended this year therefore do no more than catch up with a cut that has already been made?

No, I do not accept that. In the recommendations—I am responsible only for the most recent one—the STRB had to take into account the inflation rate, overall pay settlements in comparative sectors and affordability for local authorities. It would be quite useful if hon. Members considered events in the private sector and settlements across the country when making comparisons with public service pay.

Is it not true that the teachers' pay structure does not reward experienced teachers for excellence in the classroom? Will not the Green Paper proposals deal with that problem?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Current proposals, and the questions that have been asked today, deal with the annual round. However, we are talking about a restructuring, so that we are genuinely able to attract people into the profession, and so that they know that they will not only be reasonably rewarded when entering the profession but well rewarded as they move through the profession and gain experience—and as their abilities shine through in enhanced performance and lifted standards. The intention of substantial investment, with something for something, is to transform prospects for teachers and children in the years to come.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the factors demotivating teachers in the past 18 years has been the lack of recognition of their professional expertise? Does he agree that the proposals in the Green Paper will not only give higher rewards to good classroom teachers but enable teachers to extend their leadership roles in school and to develop their own careers? Is that not one of the best ways of motivating teachers and ensuring that they remain in the profession?

I entirely agree with that. Our proposals—which include substantial investment in establishing a leadership college, investment in head teacher training and the Green Paper's professional development proposals that can be taken advantage of by all teachers—will provide not only that motivation but the excellent skills that are needed. Those proposals in themselves will lift the teaching profession's self-esteem and confidence and help to encourage people of all ages to want to enter one of the most rewarding jobs that anyone can take up.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the teachers' pay issue is one central factor, although it is not the only one, creating the severe teacher shortage—which amounts to almost 40 per cent. in subjects such as technology and mathematics, and 30 per cent. in modern languages? Will he assure the House that the deal on which he settles will be aimed at overcoming those shortages?

I hope that the proposals—not merely in the review body's report but in the Green Paper—will make a substantial difference in recruitment in the years to come. However, we have to get the matter into some sort of perspective. I do not want there to be talk of crisis in the education service when, across the United Kingdom, there are only 2,600 teaching vacancies—which is 0.8 per cent.—240 of which are for head teachers. It is important to remember that, although I accept that the position has worsened in recent years. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has announced a package of measures with the Teacher Training Agency, including £5,000 bonuses for maths and science graduates to come into the profession. We are also proposing radical changes for the teaching profession in our Green Paper—an issue that the Conservatives neglected for the two decades they were in office.

The Secretary of State for Health has managed to recognise the crisis in the health service caused by the lack of recruitment of nurses. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is unwilling to recognise the growing crisis in our classrooms caused by a lack of teachers and problems of recruitment.

The shadow Minister is matching the shadow Secretary of State in her enthusiasm to back the National Union of Teachers and, to mirror his words, to set up workers co-operatives running our schools. "Leave it to the teachers" is the new Conservative party slogan.

What plans he has to ensure that citizenship is taught in schools. [64039]

We will ensure that citizenship has a key place in schools in the new century, drawing on the advice from the advisory group on education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools, chaired by Professor Bernard Crick, which is helping to inform the current review of the national curriculum.

I am grateful for that reply. How does my hon. Friend respond to my constituent, Christopher Hopkins, aged 9, who wrote to me recently? He said:

"I would like to know if you were planning to put politics in the national curriculum, as I find it very interesting."

Certainly, no one is trying to scotch or veto any proposals. We are taking advice from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and a wide range of organisations on the best way to put into effect the reforms that we are discussing. I agree very much with my hon. Friend's comments about the importance of teaching politics and the approach to political life and democracy in our schools. That is one reason why many politicians from all parties have supported the idea of teaching citizenship in some way.

Does the Minister accept that perhaps the most important element of the teaching of citizenship is giving young people the thought that they can influence what happens in the world in which they are growing up? Will he encourage the growing number of schools that are taking seriously ideas from their pupils about the running of their schools and the work they can do in the community?

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. Let me take the opportunity to commend his work in developing youth parliaments and other approaches to the teaching of citizenship. Schools councils have a great deal to offer. Although we have no intention of making them a requirement in the curriculum, they have assisted children from a young age to address precisely the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and the hon. Gentleman have raised.

With the welcome use of referendums by the Government, will the Minister take heed of the importance of sixth formers and those reaching the end of their school careers being adequately informed about the issues on which they may have to vote? I refer in particular to entry into the single European currency and the Jenkins commission report on electoral reform.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Referendums on issues such as she has raised are an important constitutional development that requires citizens to be as fully informed as possible of the implications of decisions that they are being asked to take, which include important decisions about economic and monetary union, proportional representation and electoral reform, and the issues on which there have already been votes in Scotland, Wales and London. That is one reason why developing within the curriculum the idea of strong citizenship will help to produce a more informed democracy and better quality decisions.

Is not citizenship just one of a range of new curriculum topics that Ministers want to impose on schools? When will they stop? There are a host of them, including "values" and "environmental awareness". When will the Government stop their remorseless flow of instructions and directives to teachers and schools—what the Secretary of State has just called partnership? Does not the Minister understand that the 322 communications sent from his Department to schools and LEAs last year represent an impossible burden which is distracting teachers from delivering the national curriculum and raising standards in schools?

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on citizenship. The reform and review of the national curriculum is exceptionally important to ensure that it best reflects current needs. As the hon. Gentleman said, the curriculum includes citizenship, sustainable development and personal, social and health education, because it is important that those issues be addressed. However, we are not imposing anything; we are undertaking a review and taking advice from a wide range of people.

Is it not irresponsible of the shadow Minister to suggest that Parliament should have no interest in what happens in schools apart from teachers' pay and similar issues? Does my hon. Friend recognise the role that his Department can play together with right hon. and hon. Members so that when we examine new ways of conducting our business to ensure democracy in the Chamber, in Committee and in local government, the issues are better understood in schools and colleges of further and higher education?

I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. I was fortunate enough to see the parliamentary website—which has been developed by the education unit of this House—at the British educational technology exhibition at Olympia yesterday, and that does precisely what my hon. Friend mentioned. I played around with the site, and saw how it was presented and working. All those in this House who are developing such education, so that young people can understand the nature of our democracy, deserve credit and thanks, and I pay tribute to those working on such projects.

How many Londoners benefited from the new deal for young people during 1998. [64040]

Latest figures to the end of November show that over 28,000 18 to 24-year-olds have benefited from the new deal in London.

Those figures do not reveal that the outcome in London has been relatively poor. Given that Glasgow, the worst area in Scotland in terms of the new deal, is better than half of London; given that Liverpool has had a better outcome than two thirds of London; and given that the worst area in Wales in terms of jobs from the new deal has had a better outcome than all but three of the 20 areas in London, what will the Minister do to make sure that London as a whole has a much better success rate and, in particular, that my borough of Southwark—which is bottom of the league table—has a better success rate than less than 10 per cent. of those who go into the new deal coming out with jobs? In Southwark, the general view is that it has been a lot of money for very little product.

There would have been no product at all if the hon. Gentleman had had his way, because there would have been no new deal. He should not talk down the achievements of the new deal in London, which has placed 5,000 young people in jobs, 2,500 in full-time education and training and another 800 in the environmental task force and voluntary sector programmes. The hon. Gentleman should remember that London has 14 of the 22 most deprived local authority districts in the country, and that is why young people there particularly need the help that the new deal provides.

I am glad to hear the figures that my right hon. Friend has just given—particularly the fact that 5,000 young Londoners have found jobs as a result of the new deal. That is a price worth paying, and it reflects the fact that 52,000 other youngsters have found work through the new deal. Given that important fact—and knowing that social deprivation often comes from unemployment—does the Minister understand why the Conservative party is opposed to the new deal and that great success? If he does understand it, can he explain it to me, because I certainly do not?

It is incomprehensible. The Conservative party opposed the new deal at the general election—the Liberal Democrats opposed the means of funding it—and all they can do is repeat their catastrophic failure in terms of youth unemployment, and unemployment in general in this country, which left a whole generation neglected and its needs ignored. The new deal is bringing the help that we promised at the general election, and to have 52,500 young people in work only seven months into a new programme is a major achievement of which we are proud.

Will the Minister confirm that the average cost per job of the new deal programme in London is £11,000, by comparison with £443 for a job obtained from a job club and £282 per job through the restart programme? Given that, only this week, we have witnessed among young Londoners between 18 and 24 a substantial increase in the number of those who have been unemployed for between six and 12 months, why does not the right hon. Gentleman cease to be so wet behind the ears and admit that the programme has been a colossal and expensive failure?

The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman are a grotesque fabrication by his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench. The true average cost of securing jobs through the new deal is about £1,000, and very good value that represents. It is money well spent, bringing hope and opportunity to young people who would be denied them by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. As for the labour force survey statistics, they show that over 14,000 more young people in that age group have gained employment since the new deal started.

If he will outline his plans for the youth service. [64041]

The Government see the youth service not only as carrying out its traditional tasks, but as constituting a vital partner in our vision of ending social exclusion and widening participation. A paper on the future of the youth service is in preparation, and will be available for consultation soon.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. The paper is eagerly awaited throughout the country.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and congratulate the youth workers in Corby. As the House knows, last year we conducted and published the first national audit of youth service work. The details varied: some authorities spent just under £300 per youngster in their areas, but the amount fell as low as under £20.

One obstacle in the way of the youth service in my part of the country is the Government's delay in producing national guidelines or an approved scheme to deal with the registration of youth workers and youth organisations, as proposed by Lord Cullen after his inquiry into the disastrous events in Dunblane. Can the Minister give us any idea of when the Government might introduce either United Kingdom or separate English and Scottish arrangements enabling local authorities to work together to produce an approved scheme that will allow more youth workers to be properly vetted?

Vetting is a problem. I hear many requests from the youth service for statutory provision, but I am at pains to tell youth service workers and authorities—including local authorities—not to wait for legislation. They know the task that the Government have placed at the top of the agenda: ending social exclusion, an aim that is shared throughout the House. I urge local authorities, notwithstanding their wish for statutory backing, to get on with the job even before the publication of the consultation paper.

What measures he is taking to promote the retention of people in employment when they become disabled. [64042]

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to an important aspect of our drive to help people with disabilities into the labour market. Clearly, it makes good sense to offer early help to people who, through disability, risk losing their job. The Employment Service already helps some 5,000 disabled people a year to retain their jobs and the new deal for disabled people will explore what further employment and training support is needed.

My hon. Friend is clearly aware that to assist a disabled person to stay in work enhances not only their dignity and income, but their productivity, and prevents them from what could be a lifetime on the dole. It must be frustrating for an employee in middle age to lose their job because of reduced dexterity and mobility or increased sensory impairment. I welcome the measures that my hon. Friend has described.

I am delighted to be able to reassure my hon. Friend on that point. I would particularly like to thank him for all his work in supporting civil rights for disabled people. Clearly, it makes good sense to try to keep people in their jobs, rather than to force them on to benefits and then to try to bring them back into the labour market, so that will be the thrust of all our policies.

While I welcome what the Minister says, is she aware of the considerable difficulties experienced by the children who come out of a school such as the Pear Tree school in my constituency—which deals with children who have severe learning difficulties—in gaining a place in the employment sector in the first place? Will she undertake to study the matter and to look at the problems that are being encountered by the school in connection with further education, social services and the Employment Service? As a first step, will she to speak to the school's head mistress, Mrs. Jean Cooke, about her first-hand experience in that difficult area?

I give the reassurance that, if the right hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will look into the particular circumstances of the children who leave that school. I know that he has raised the matter previously with my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards in relation to the Green Paper on special educational needs. Clearly, it is important that young children with learning disabilities should be given opportunities in the labour market. Part of the new deal and our policies to open access to further education are geared towards ensuring that those opportunities exist.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that Remploy factories, which have a tremendous history of employing disabled peopled, have an important part to play, in addition to all the other measures that the Government are announcing?

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that Remploy will have a crucial role over the coming period in ensuring that we provide employment opportunities for people with disabilities. We want not only to provide opportunities in its factories, but to ensure that we can progress people through the factory into open employment, so that we can start to deal with the discrimination that people have experienced in the labour market over many years.

I welcome the steps that have been taken, but sometimes it is difficult to get what might be available through to people who require that help. Is the onus on the individual, or are the social security officers being trained to give guidance to those with disabilities as to the benefits and aids that might be available?

I am working with my colleagues in the Department of Social Security to ensure that we get a joined up Government approach to ensuring employment opportunities for disabled people. I am also working with colleagues in the Department of Health, so that we can get that liaison going. We have special advisers in the Employment Service focusing on the employment needs of disabled people.

What new measures he plans to introduce to expand opportunities under the new deal; and if he will make a statement. [64043]

So far, 201,000 young people have entered the new deal programme and 52,500 have gone into work. In addition, we have introduced a new range of initiatives that includes the skills shortage pilot programme. Employers are able to access three quarters of the total amount available in subsidy if they are prepared to provide up-front, concentrated skills training. Also, 100,000 young people will benefit from the new mentoring programme, and the 28 new deal pilot programmes will help 90,000 people aged over 25.

Can I suggest another idea to my right hon. Friend? He, like many Labour Members, will be aware that the local authority is often the largest employer in areas of high unemployment, so why not make more use of those authorities to implement the new deal? Unemployment is excessively high in some of the old colliery areas. Under the new deal scheme, new training centres could be established and run in co-operation with those local authorities. That would ensure that, in future, there would be people to mend the roads, repair the schools and so on. That would be a useful approach, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take it on board.

My hon. Friend is right. In replacing the old skill centres, we must look imaginatively at how the national traineeships that we are developing this year and the modern apprenticeship programme can directly impact on the skills that young people need to get into work. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that my Department will study the way in which the national traineeships and the Employment Service new deal can be linked to build on the success that we have achieved in the task that we face.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that, given the enormous resources that have gone into the new deal programme, it is important that the House can be sure that the scheme is working as well as the Government want it to? Does he recall that page 12 of the Government's specification for the new deal programme for young people aged between 18 and 24, tells potential contractors that at least 45 per cent. of people on options would move into subsidised employment? So far, that figure has totalled only 25 per cent. Does not that show that the new deal programme is not working as well as the Government hoped?

I am sure that that forecast was contained in paragraph 3 of page 12. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the crucial point, which is that the key to ensuring that the value-for-money precepts built into the new deal programme are achieved is that the programme has a target for unsubsidised employment. The gateway proposals on providing advice, counselling and social skills have enabled that target to be achieved and, in fact, exceeded. The latest figures show that we reduced the claimant count for that particular group by 5,000 in December alone.

While I warmly welcome the fantastic news about the number of young people who are now in employment, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is crucial to bring on line as quickly as possible assistance for those over 25 and, in particular, for people in their 40s who find themselves unemployed? We must accept that manufacturing jobs are being lost. For example, at Ladybird Books in my constituency 200 people will lose their jobs and, as they have been working on machines that are more than 30 years old, it will be extremely difficult for them to find work. Can we ensure that assistance is given to them as quickly as possible, so that they do not have to wait to become long-term unemployed before they get help from the new deal?

I agree entirely that we need to be able to do that and I look forward to being able to expand on the pilot programmes that I mentioned, which will help 90,000 such individuals. It is a case not simply of the new deal, but of the whole programme from the Employment Service and the Department for Education and Employment, including the rapid response unit, which is moving in quickly where redundancies are declared, and working with the training and enterprise councils, employers and trade unions to ensure that we can immediately move those people into other opportunities for retraining or directly into jobs. Bearing in mind the fact that we face a challenge this winter, the success of that programme was exemplified in yesterday's figures.

The Secretary of State's claims for the new deal bear close scrutiny. In November, the Government said that they would spend £660 million in the coming financial year on the new deal. In December, the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities claimed for the first time, as he repeated this morning, that each new deal job cost £1,000. With the benefit of the numeracy programme, the Secretary of State should be able to work out that that means that there will be 660,000 long-term unemployed young people later this year. Either the Chancellor's economic policy is even more disastrous than I thought, or that £1,000 figure is complete nonsense. Which is it?

I was genuinely expecting more of an Oxford graduate.

Answer the question.

I am about to do so. The calculations are sensible and take into account the fact that when someone gets a job he or she pays back into the Exchequer in tax and national insurance and thus contributes directly rather than drawing benefits. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members saying, "Ah!". Every time someone draws a benefit, he or she costs the state money. Every time someone pays tax and national insurance, it helps us to invest in stopping people being dependent on the state. New Labour stands for independence, dignity and self-reliance.

Will my right hon. Friend join me to pay tribute to the staff of the Employment Service in Northampton, who have been taking new deal road shows round shopping centres, especially in places with a large number of single parents? They have done so jointly with staff from the Benefits Agency and have provided good advice and opportunities to single parents under the new deal programme. Will he ensure that such schemes are extended to other areas because they are an exercise in joined-up government, they provide real opportunities to lone parents and they also ensure that staff in Government agencies are encouraged to show initiative and imagination in the way in which they develop such programmes?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and I congratulate those staff in Northampton who have developed that programme and worked together to make it successful. The child care initiative and the forthcoming working families tax credit, together with the announcement that the Secretary of State for Social Security and I made yesterday, which builds on the enormous amount of work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities has done to draw up the gateway proposals, with advice, support, counselling and rehabilitation, will all contribute to making success a reality throughout the country.

What assessment he has made of the educational and training value of the video, "Left-Handed Children; A Guide for Teachers and Parents", produced in consultation with his Department and the Teacher Training Agency; and if he will make a statement. [64044]

The video can play a part in raising teachers' awareness of the particular issues surrounding left-handed children. I hope that it will be of use both for the initial training and the continuing professional development of teachers.

I thank the Minister for another constructive answer on this important but previously overlooked problem. I am glad that she agrees that the video produced by Mark Stewart and the Left-Handers Club of Great Britain and generously sponsored by the Post Office can play a part in improving teachers' awareness of this important issue. I am sure that she welcomes the fact that the Teacher Training Agency is sending the video to all providers of initial teacher training. What can be done to ensure that teachers in nursery, first and primary schools are made aware of its existence and get a copy, and ensure that teachers and governors sit down and watch it?

The hon. Gentleman is right that much progress has been made in acknowledging that the left-handedness of children is a factor in the educational development of some of them. I am pleased that he welcomes the fact that the Teacher Training Agency has agreed to fund distribution of the video to initial teacher training providers. Beyond that, it is for others to make it clear that the video is available. Ultimately, the allocation of resources for purchasing videos and other things is up to head teachers and governing bodies.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating Mr. Richard Buttle, the head teacher of Redhill primary school, his staff and the children, who took part in making the video? Does she agree that this exemplifies the high standards of teaching in that school and in Worcestershire as a whole?

I am happy to do so and to confirm that the Teacher Training Agency has informed me that the video is of good quality. I extend my congratulations and thanks to all involved.

If he will review the UK's contribution to the implementing of International Labour Organisation conventions; and if he will make a statement. [64046]

We have been reviewing the conventions as yet unratified by the United Kingdom. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

I thank the Minister. May I remind him that there is a long list of unratified or unimplemented ILO conventions? I welcome what I think that he said about publishing the comments of the Government in respect of them all. Will he address with urgency the ratification of conventions 111 and 138, which relate to discrimination in employment and combating the exploitation of child labour? They are important and their non-ratification is causing us some embarrassment, especially in respect of the latter. Will he consider convention 137 on dock workers? Can we have early re-ratification of convention 26 on the minimum wage?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the importance of those conventions and the desirability of the United Kingdom being able to ratify them. We took a leading role in securing the adoption of the declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work at the ILO convention in Geneva last June. The steps that we have set out in "Fairness at Work", along with introducing the minimum wage and signing up to the social chapter are significant strides forward for workers' rights and representation in this country. I hope to reach agreement shortly on signing up to convention 111 and also to convention 138 on the minimum age in respect of child labour. We have been working closely with other bodies in this country and internationally to stamp out the grotesque abuses of child labour.

What representations he has received from school governing bodies with infant and junior classes about the effect of lower class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds on future classes for eight, nine and 10-year-olds. [64047]

Some governing bodies have sought clarification of the implications of the policy for junior classes. We have made it clear in our guidance to local education authorities that lower class sizes for infant pupils must not be achieved at the expense of junior pupils. We are providing £620 million for the pledge to be met fully and to ensure that resources are not diverted from other phases of education.

St. John's school, Weymouth, wrote to me about a point on which I wrote to the Minister and on which she has replied to me. The school now has classes of 30 where previously it had had higher numbers. That means that the school's funding for the later years relies upon having larger classes to ensure that it gets the same funding. The school is concerned that bringing in lower class sizes will undermine its viability. It simply asks the Government to address the issue. This is important to a county such as Dorset, which is at the bottom of the standard spending assessment league table—the money that the Government say that it is allowed to spend. It already spends well above SSA in schools. The Government need to consider this important point because school governors are worried about the future of their school.

I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that schools now do not have to have huge class sizes in order to get extra money, as they had to do when his party was in power. It is clear that the school to which he refers and many others in his constituency and local authority will have money to reduce infant class sizes and will receive a share not only of the extra £19 billion that will be put into education over the next three years but, I suspect, of the 20,000 extra teaching assistants that will be funded through the standards fund. I know that the hon. Gentleman omitted to say, because of lack of time, that he very much welcomed the £0.5 million extra money that his area received to reduce class sizes last September and the reduction by more than 1,000 of five, six and seven-year-olds in Dorset now in classes of over 30.

Will my hon. Friend develop further her comment about the 20,000 extra classroom assistants and their contribution, together with lower class sizes, to improving standards in our schools? How does she expect them to contribute to making teachers even more able to do the job that they are there to do?

The extra 20,000 classroom assistants are one of the most important policies in the Green Paper on the reform of the teaching profession. For too long they have been an ignored group of people. They contribute a great deal to standards in schools and among individuals. I am delighted that for the first time they can be assured of proper training and a proper place in the education of our children. I pay tribute to the good work that they have done and that they will do when there are more of them under this Government.

Does the Minister accept that a survey by another group of our friends in education, the National Association of Head Teachers—[Interruption.] They are all on our side now because they recognise the consequences of the rigid implementation of the Government's pledge on class sizes. The association shows in its survey that there are more larger classes in junior schools for eight, nine and 10-year-olds as a direct consequence of the rigid implementation of the pledge. Does the Minister not understand that schools also have more mixed-year classes and, despite what she said a moment ago, that there is still per capita funding for schools? Schools are having to turn away children whom they would have been happy to educate and they are losing funding as a result. Does the Minister not understand that that is a consequence of the rigid implementation of the pledge?

I have never heard so much twaddle in my life. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman quote a figure in a survey and claim that there are more junior school children in large classes as a consequence of the infant school policy when the children educated in smaller classes cannot possibly have reached the ages to which he referred? That is absolute nonsense. The policy has not yet been enacted in full, but it will be in two years' time. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot change his mind since the general election and now claim that class size matters while he objects to every penny that we put in and every action that we take to deliver our pledge to parents and pupils. His local authority received £1 million of capital funding to reduce class sizes last September. It has gained from our policy. He and every other Member of Parliament will see five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of no more than 30 and junior school pupils benefiting from the extra resources put into education as a whole.

What estimate his Department has made of the number of four-year-olds in reception classes; and if he will make a statement. [64048]

In January 1998, 350,959 four-year-olds were in maintained reception classes in England.

Is the Minister aware that in rural Northumberland, where successive local government settlements have left schools desperately underfunded, schools feel under pressure to take in four-year-olds to maintain their position at the expense of the viability of play groups? As there are so many four-year-olds, will there be a curriculum for them along the lines of the foundation key stage about which the Minister spoke before Christmas? Or shall we finish up with four-year-olds in sets, as recommended by the chief inspector?

What matters is not so much the setting in which a child receives that pre-school experience, but the nature of the experience itself and we are focusing on that. That is why we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for proposals to review the desirable learning outcomes. Like the right hon. Gentleman, we recognise that what count are skills in listening, speaking and working together, in persistence and co-operation. We shall pursue that agenda and there is no question at all, in anything that has been said, relating to setting.