If he will make a statement on the funding of further education. [127920]

I announced last November that there would be an additional £365 million for the further education sector next year. That is a real-terms increase of 7.7 per cent., the largest single increase that the further education sector has ever received. It will bring the total to £3.9 billion.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the grave concern of many FE colleges, including my own, the West Suffolk college in Bury St. Edmunds, which feel badly let down by the performance of the Further Education Funding Council this year? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many colleges have not yet even received clear indicative allocations of their basic funding? Is he aware that agreements relating to Learn Direct, adult growth programmes and the standards fund have not yet been completed in advance of the new financial year in August?

I shall certainly make sure that the Learning and Skills Council acts effectively to pull together the further education and training and enterprise funding and to deliver it with high quality and effective management. We are pleased that Bryan Sanderson has agreed to be the chair of the new Learning and Skills Council and that Nick Reilly, the managing director of Vauxhall, has agreed to be the new chairman of the adult learning inspectorate. I am certain that, between them, they will ensure that the quality and improvements that we seek will be achieved. If there is a particular problem at Bury St. Edmunds, I shall be happy to look into it with my colleagues and to make sure that the college gets the information that it needs.

May I inform my right hon. Friend that many of the FE colleges that I visit as Chairman of the Select Committee tell me that the Government have indeed got a grip on funding? There are still some complaints about efficiency savings and the need to find another 1 per cent. this year to pay for the pay rises, so it is not all sweetness and light in the FE sector, but there is a widespread feeling that we are moving in the right direction. I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), but is my right hon. Friend aware that serious concern has been expressed about the running of the FEFC? I, too, welcome the appointment of Bryan Sanderson and, perhaps, the start of a new page in the history of further education, which the Government have initiated.

We have had a proud record of avoiding some of the difficulties inherent in parts of the private sector with regard to training in further education, but as my hon. Friend knows, we have taken draconian steps to tackle inefficiency and the quality of provision in colleges. We are pleased that this year we have managed to get 45 colleges out of category C in relation to their financial management. That is an important achievement, but there is much still to do. That is why we have been rigorous in tackling failure wherever it occurs.

Although any increase in funding is welcome—provided that it is a real increase, not a smoke-and-mirrors type of increase—there is still concern in further education colleges because they cannot pay lecturers competitive rates, particularly in market-related sectors such as business and computing. It is extremely difficult for them to recruit and deliver in those areas. Can the Secretary of State explain to the House why, despite his claims to have a grip on the situation, and his projections of a rapid increase of 700,000 in further education enrolments over two years, the actual turnout can best be described as flat-lining on a base, and is in fact genteelly declining under his stewardship?

It was the Conservatives who did away with demand-led expenditure, which led to a dramatic fall in the number of students recruited to further education. We have—we make no apology for this—combed out the inappropriate franchising, which led to what can only be described as a complete fiddle of the numbers in further education. The 1 per cent. drop in full-time equivalent students will be reversed as we put £240 million next year into improving and increasing access.

I welcome the extra funding for further education, which is widening opportunities and participation, but will my right hon. Friend consider a quid pro quo: removing the cap on student numbers at some of our best universities providing that they agree to increased participation by those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds?

We are involved with the Higher Education Funding Council in the direction of resources for next year, particularly the additional cash that will be available specifically for improving access. I welcome the steps that have been taken by Mansfield college in Oxford, and others, and we are keen specifically to target further education, tertiary and sixth form colleges, a neglected area in terms of university access, to ensure that their best students can be recruited to those universities.

What his policy is on selection in schools. [127921]

It is a matter for local parents to decide whether or not local grammar schools continue to use selective admissions. The admissions code of practice gives schools guidance on other issues and it is for the schools adjudicator to resolve disputes where they arise, including on issues of partial selection.

That is not a very satisfactory answer from the Minister. Why is it the Government's policy to force popular schools to select pupils on the basis of whether their parents can afford to move into their catchment area? That is one of the most pernicious aspects of the Government's selection policy. Would it not be much fairer to allow school boards to decide for themselves their own admissions criteria?

There we have an outrider for the Leader of the Opposition's speech this week, asking us to create a sort of free-for-all in admissions policies—presumably that would be what the Opposition wants—which would presumably also apply to primary schools, whose governing bodies would also have the right to select. Are we now to see the nightmare vision of primary moderns in our system—not just a return to the 11-plus, but a 4-plus for our children?

Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the interview by the shadow Education Secretary on Channel 4's "Powerhouse" yesterday, many schools in my constituency are extremely worried, particularly primary schools, that they will have to consider selection by academic ability, and that many of them will be left as part of a second-rate tier of schools? What on earth can we do to avoid that threat posed by the Conservative proposals?

My hon. Friend raises a matter of considerable concern among parents. It is important that we continue with the planned situation, which gives parents the chance, where possible, to choose, but also, through the admissions forum, provides much more certainty about what will happen. The key point about our proposals, by contrast with those of the Opposition, is that it is not possible to allow both parents and schools to choose. Our emphasis is that, wherever possible, parents need to be able to express a preference, not that schools should have the right to weed out children whom they do not want, thereby depriving parents of their choices.

Given that the hon. Lady is in review mode, will she confirm one thing that she will not do and three things that she will? Will she promise to do nothing to make it easier to abolish a grammar school, promise to limit petitions to one every five years, promise to allow grammar school parents the right to vote in all ballots, and promise to adopt the Conservative policy of making every school a free school—free to select its pupils, free to choose its term times, free to manage its budget, free to arrange its transport, free to enforce its discipline and free to run its own affairs?

I think that I lost count of the questions as we went through them. The key matter is that we made it clear that, where grammar schools exist, parents will decide the future of their selective admission arrangements. We have extensively debated concerns about balloting arrangements. We have no plans to review the threshold. We have no plans to take away the right of parents to decide on the future of selective admission arrangements, which is what the Opposition's proposals would do.

If he will make a statement on access funds in further education. [127922]

Access funds provide help with transport, course and living costs. They are available to students of 16 and over in schools and colleges. Access funds have been increased from £9 million in 1997–98 to £63 million this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. At City college, Manchester, where I am a member of the governing body, access funds increased from £96,000 two years ago to more than £700,000 in the current year. I warmly welcome the Government's strong commitment to extending student support and widening participation; but what action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that further education colleges are held firmly to account for the way in which they distribute the new funds?

That is an important point. As the fund increases, we need to be rigorous about its allocation. The National Audit Office has considered arrangements centrally and has found them to be acceptable. Our departmental auditors are working with the Further Education Funding Council to ensure that arrangements for managing and allocating funds at college level—considerable funds, now—are robust. As with any social security system, if I may put it that way, we must ensure that those in need get these funds and not those who know how to work the system.

Does the Minister share my concern at the cut in Government spending on further and higher education by removing student grants? Will he apologise to those students who are now not able to go into further and higher education? Will he apologise also for failing to meet the Government's pledge of increasing expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP?

I would share the hon. Lady's concern if for one moment what she suggests were true. We are proud that we have introduced record funding for further education and extra funding for university education. It is important in both sectors that we enable more of our young people, and older citizens, too, to benefit from further and higher education, and that we do not sacrifice quality when we go for quantity. That is what we are doing, and that is our policy.

If he will make a statement on foundation degrees. [127923]

Foundation degrees will offer a new vocationally focused route into higher education and employment. They will equip students with the specialist technical knowledge and employability skills needed in our new economy and contribute to wider participation by attracting many people who do not enter higher education.

I am grateful for that reply. Does my hon. Friend agree that foundation degrees provide an excellent opportunity to link higher education and employers more effectively so that we can meet the new high levels of skills needs? Does he agree also that it is typical of the Opposition's contempt for vocational learning that they oppose foundation degrees?

One of the great challenges for the Government is achieving a better interface and overlap between the academic and the vocational. The foundation degree is part of that strategy. The skills taskforce has told us that we are short of people at associate professional and technician level. The foundation degree will be an attractive route for many people, some of whom will have completed modern apprenticeships to get into university.

We strongly support the foundation degree principle and its vocational basis. There is a niche in the market for such a degree. However, there is an inconsistency in the Government's thinking, in that the funding will be provided by the Higher Education Funding Council rather than the Learning and Skills Council. Is it not a slight on our further education colleges that they cannot bid directly to run foundation degrees, which would form part of their core market? The ability to bid directly would be preferable to depending on crumbs from the rich man's table to deliver the programmes. When the Minister and the Secretary of State attend the festival in Birmingham today, will they review the position and try to ensure that there is a seamless progression between further education and higher education, to avoid creating needless barriers?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, many further education institutions provide higher education through partnerships with universities. We expect them to play a role in future. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we are keen to establish close links between the university sector nationally and the new Learning and Skills Council. We shall do that. Even more importantly, we need to build on relationships between universities and the wider community. That means close links with local learning and skills councils.

What plans the Government have to extend the specialist schools programme. [127924]

With the additional 55 specialist schools that were announced on 20 June, there will be a total of 534 such schools by September. That compares with the 181 specialist schools that we inherited in 1997. We have, of course, altered the funding to ensure collaboration with the cluster of schools in the area, and developed the programme so that it reaches out into the local community.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In view of proposals that the Conservative party recently announced, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he believes that it is sensible or indeed possible to expand specialist schools without granting them targeted extra resources?

Specialist schools have specific additional resources to share with neighbouring schools and to develop the core specialism on which their designation is based. If Conservative party proposals were adopted—bearing in mind that half the resources they mentioned involved double counting—and we did away with the standards fund and specific resources, we would not be able to fund and match-fund the specialist school programme. As with much else that was announced on Tuesday, Conservative policy would unravel a programme that has been highly successful in raising the standard and quality of education in schools, and in contributing to the education programme in their communities.

The Secretary of State talks about opportunity for all; what has he to say to people who do not live in an area that has a specialist school?

I say that, with collaboration, including the use of information and communication technology, we are now able—and when we reach our target of 800 specialist schools in the next three years, will be even better able—to ensure that those schools reach out and provide the additional specialism in the locality where it is needed. For example, we are developing the sports college programme. Sports co-ordinators, who will work with primary and secondary schools in an area, will be attached to it to provide not only a targeted specialism, but the ability to draw in the wider community of schools and the neighbourhood, thus enabling them to develop and enjoy expertise.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the considerable success of Clough Hall technology school, which he visited some years ago, in my constituency? It has been successful not only in exam results but in other ways. I welcome the different approach to specialist schools that the Government have adopted. It means that each school has to share its resources with the community and with other schools. That contrasts with the previous Government's approach, which meant that every specialist school could take all the resources for itself, without sharing them with the community. The new approach has meant that Clough Hall shares resources with Maryhill high school, with the community, and with after-school clubs.

Order. The hon. Lady is supposed to be asking a question, not making a speech.

We are happy to consider joint approaches. In fact, we have already done so, and were pleased to announce not only the joining of schools that have faced particular challenges, but the joining of schools with different emphases. There is, for instance, an interesting joint proposal for specialist status from a grammar school and a secondary modern, which will unite their endeavours to raise standards rather than divide both schools and pupils.

Yet again, the Government are changing their line on free schools. We have had spin line number five, six or seven from the Secretary of State today. The only double counting on education funding comes from this Government, who claimed that there was an extra £19 billion for schools when there was less than £6 billion.

Of course I accept the statistics about specialist schools. With the London school of economics and Leeds university, we sponsored the research that the hon. Lady has used. We are pleased about what has happened, because we have emphasised the need to build the confidence of teachers, and that of schools generally, in their ability to concentrate on and subsequently develop from a specialism. That is why we are dramatically increasing the number of specialist schools.

The real problem is that this Government cannot take the truth of what they are doing in education. Specialisation—a separate ethos, and freedom for schools—has been shown to raise standards to the benefit of children. Today, we see the head of a rural primary school taking a £10,000 pay cut to become a lorry driver, because he is fed up with the mountain of bureaucracy. Should not the lorry be taking away the paperwork, not the head teacher? Is it not time that the Government got off the back of schools, trusted teachers and parents, and set schools free to raise standards?

Under the proposals announced by the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday, all head teachers would have to become drivers, because under those proposals the transport provided by their authorities would be withdrawn.

What steps the Government have taken to improve standards of literacy and numeracy in schools. [127925]

The national literacy and numeracy strategies, supported this year by funding of £200 million, have transformed the quality of teaching, and raised standards in primary schools. In the 1999 key stage 2 tests, the number of 11-year-olds achieving the expected level for their age increased by six percentage points for English, and by 10 percentage points for mathematics.

The Government's initiative in St. Helens is improving the level of attainment of most children, and is very welcome. What does my hon. Friend think would happen if we implemented the Tories' proposals, and sacked all those involved in that important initiative?

I, too, congratulate both the teachers and the support staff who have been involved in the raising of standards in St. Helens.

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the head, the staff, the pupils and the parents at Western Coyney infants school in my constituency, which has just been awarded beacon status? They have an excellent record on literacy and numeracy. Is not that award even more commendable owing to the fact that the school does not select its pupils and is in the middle of one of the most socially and economically deprived areas in my constituency? Does it not show the success and determination of the Government in raising standards?

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the teachers, the children and the governors at that school, because it is clear that the standards that we are seeing in literacy and numeracy have been achieved because of the commitment and enthusiasm of teachers and of those who support them in LEAs, and by the Government's commitment to ensuring that we raise standards. The work has been done at school level and many congratulations are due to those who have done it.

What recent representations he has received about computers for teachers. [127926]

We have received a significant number of representations about late payment of claims and many thank-your for the scheme, the first ever to give teachers real help to buy a computer for their own use. However, all delays are a matter of regret. As soon as I became aware that delays were taking place, we took urgent action to remove them. More than 90 per cent. of eligible claims have now been paid. The remainder will be paid in the next few days, subject only to their eligibility.

Will the Minister now admit that the computers for schools scheme has been incompetently managed? Will he explain to my constituent, Mrs. Day, who is one of the 10 per cent. of teachers who took up the scheme, how £15 can adequately compensate her for her wait, which was five months, and for the money that she had to borrow to pay her child's university tuition fees? How much has the scheme cost? How many £15 compensation payments will he make? Will he reassure the House that the new assessment scheme, which has been taken up by 80 per cent. of teachers, will not be incompetently managed?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman on all those points. May I go through them one by one? If he had read his correspondence, he would have the answers to most of his questions already. As he well knows, as soon as the matter was brought to my personal attention, I acted on behalf of his constituents. If he goes back to the correspondence and reads it, he will receive the answers to a lot of his questions.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of new deal pilot schemes for people aged over 50 years. [127927]

New deal 50-plus was widely welcomed in the nine pilot areas. A total of 1,050 people were helped into work through the package of support that it offered. More detailed evaluation findings will be published from later this month. As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister launched the programme nationally in April.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, in the Manchester and Salford city pride new deal area, we have got more than 200 people into work in the past six months? They include Mary, who had not worked for 13 years, who got a job as a sales assistant at Boots the Chemists, and whose life has changed dramatically—she has made new friends and is earning a decent income for the first time in years; and George, who is now a manager on £30,000 a year in Manchester through the new deal programme. Those opportunities would be destroyed by the Conservative party.

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is a simple yes, we are aware of the additional requirements. The answer to the first part of the question is that I congratulate those of her constituents who have successfully found work. Since the scheme went national, every week so far, 600 people over 50 on voluntary schemes have been helped into work by the new deal 50-plus.

Given that there are just short of 3 million people over 50 but under retirement age who are not working, half of whom have not worked for five years, why have the Government skewed their policy frivolously to waste resources on the new deal to so little effect, while that cohort have been denied the resources that they require?

It is an outrage for a Conservative Member to dare to stand in the Chamber and talk about the number of over-50s out of work. In the 20 years before we came into government, the number of over-50s in work decreased from 84 per cent, in about 1979, to 66 per cent. when we came into office. That was the legacy that we inherited. The sums that we are spending on adults in the new deal overall are similar to those that we are spending on young people. We do not want to consign anyone to the dustbin of unemployment.

If he will make a statement on the small schools support fund. [127928]

We are spending £40 million on the small schools support fund from September 2000 to 31 March 2001. We want to encourage schools to pilot new ways of working with others. I hope that the pilots will benefit schools in two ways: first, to help them to identify more efficient and cost-effective ways of working, through sharing and collaborating with others; and secondly, to raise their standards even further.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. She will be aware that between 1993 and 1997, during the Tory Administration, 450 schools closed. In my constituency, that affected the four villages of Hood Green, Hazel Head, Crane Moor and Crow Edge. Can she say how the new support system for small schools will halt the Tory trend of closing rural schools, and what types of benefits that support will bring back to the rural community?

This Government have reduced the closure rate for rural schools from 30 to four each year. We have done that by investing in and deliberately supporting rural schools in their efforts to stay open. In my hon. Friend's local education authority, if not in his constituency, 37 nursery, primary, special and secondary schools and referral units will be supported by the small schools budget. It is up to them to find the most appropriate way of maintaining themselves, whether that is through information technology, additional staff development or the sharing of facilities.

What steps he is taking to improve access to higher education for students from lower socio-economic groups; and if he will make a statement. [127929]

Our concern is clear: all those who have ability should have access to universities, including the top ones. We are tackling that in a number of ways. Through the Higher Education Funding Council, for example, we are providing £24 million in respect of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, which recognises the extra work in recruiting and retaining students from that group. The Higher Education Funding Council will be developing that work.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that as almost 66 per cent. of students who achieve three grade As at A-level come from schools in the state sector, it is time that some of our leading universities looked seriously at the way in which they set out to attract those youngsters, and at their admissions procedures, to ensure that they are fair and really based on merit, rather than on the schools that people went to. Does he agree that it is scandalous for the Opposition to defend the privileges of the few rather than ensuring that all our youngsters have a proper chance to develop their full potential?

We should certainly acknowledge the fact that many comprehensive schools now enable very bright youngsters to get first-class A-level results, and we should pay tribute to the comprehensive system. We are now working with universities, including Oxford university, through summer schools and the rest, to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds have access to university. As for the Opposition, by their interests they shall be judged. Today they have spoken about selection, grammar schools and elitism. Our interests are rather different. We are concerned with all children, all schools and fair access to universities.

It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who spoke about elitism in universities. That was his obsession and no one else's. What has the Minister to say about the evidence that the vice-chancellor of Oxford university gave the Select Committee on Education and Employment yesterday, when he said that the Chancellor's attack was ill informed and might have damaged Oxford's efforts to attract the greatest possible number of the brightest and best, wherever they come from?

Oxford university's own working paper on the subject many months ago recognised the problem that, for different reasons, many able boys and girls from state schools, who have good A-levels, are not getting into our top universities. Now, instead of just having a row about it, we must move on to remedy the situation, and that is what we are doing. I predict that in future more able boys and girls from state schools will go to our top universities. That will be the test, and I am confident that we will succeed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor's introduction of education maintenance allowances for 16 to 18-year-olds will probably be the best legacy of this Government's first term, as it will enable more young people from lower socio-economic groups to get into university? Will the Department encourage the Treasury to extend that scheme universally?

Yes. We thank the Chancellor for many things, not least for funding the education maintenance allowance schemes. The schemes are already successful and more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are staying on in further education after the age of 16. That will help us to ensure that those bright boys and girls have a fair chance of getting into university. We are motivated by the values of equality; the lot opposite are more concerned about elitism.

Is the Minister aware of evidence given to the Select Committee by the Universities and Colleges Admission Service, the Higher Education Funding Council, the Sutton trust, the Independent Schools Association and universities, suggesting that a barrier that prevents people from less well represented areas and poorer backgrounds from applying to universities is fear of debt? Can he explain to the House how the removal of maintenance grants from the poorest students helps them to access higher education? Is not the student support scheme that he introduced making students from poorer backgrounds still poorer, and will that not be the legacy of this Government that people remember?

I think that the answer to that long question is no. We are introducing opportunity bursaries so that students from poor backgrounds have an opportunity to go to university; 40 per cent. of university students do not pay tuition fees, and the number will increase. The student finance system is fair. We are increasing the number of our young people who go to university, while maintaining quality. Under the previous Administration, unit funding per student declined. We will not tolerate that. We are maintaining quality as well as quantity. There was a time when the Liberal party attacked elitism rather than defending it.

If he will make a statement on the community learning centre being established at Plessington catholic high school technology college. [127930]

Plessington Catholic high school will become a beacon school in September 2000. It has submitted an expression of interest under the Government's ICT learning centres initiative. The Government office for the north west will work with the school and give it a preliminary assessment by the end of July, so that it can work up a full application by 6 October 2000.

Does my hon. Friend agree that schools such as Plessington have high standards in information technology and communication skills, which can help materially in raising standards? Will she join me in congratulating Plessington on the work it is doing in the context of the community learning sector, in partnership with business, to make those skills and technologies available to people who would not previously have had access to them?

Yes; I am especially pleased that Plessington school will benefit from the beacon schools initiative, which will give it some £32,000 a year on average to share its expertise, which lies especially in using information and communication technology to improve learning, and will also give it the opportunity—as my hon. Friend points out—to work imaginatively with local businesses to ensure that they can deliver locally the national objective of sharing good practice between schools and opening up opportunities in our communities through the use of information and communication technology, for the widest possible learning to take place.

If he will make a statement on the average size of secondary school classes. [127931]

The average size of classes in secondary schools is 22.0—[HON. MEMBERS: "That is 22."]—about five lower than in primary schools. If head teachers spent the extra funding that they received in the Budget on teachers, the pupil-teacher ratio could be reduced by 0.4. In addition, since January 1998 we have already reduced by 300,000 the number of children in infant classes of more than 30 pupils.

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the excellent Wootton Bassett comprehensive school in my constituency, which came top of the A-level league tables last year, and is just about to start a new PFI scheme for a new school, brought in by the Conservative-controlled Wiltshire county council? Will she also admit to an error in her answer? The average class size today is 22.02, not 22.0, as she said. The figure of 22.0 applied last year. Will she agree that that compares disgracefully with the 21.66 average class size when the Government came to power? They committed themselves to reducing the average class size, but it has gone up, which is making it more difficult for ordinary comprehensive schools across England to compete with Wootton Bassett.

I am always willing to congratulate schools on achieving high standards, and I am willing to do so today—but the hon. Gentleman is wrong. Average class sizes have fallen and primary class sizes have fallen, but there has been a 0.1 per cent. increase in secondary class sizes in the past year. That is a trend that has been going on since 1988. As I have already pointed out, we are delivering on our pledge, which was to reduce class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds—a pledge that means 12,000 additional places in popular schools and £5.8 million for Wiltshire to support that initiative. We said that we would do that, and we are delivering.

Would not the class size pledge have been seen in a different light in 1997 if it had been known that while some class sizes would go down, others would go up? Is not the plain fact—irrespective of the Minister's selective use of statistics—that class sizes today are higher for seven to 11-year-olds, and for secondary schoolchildren, than they were in 1997? If we include all schools, as we were invited to do by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), the pupil-teacher ratio is the same as it was in 1997. In three years the Government have delivered nothing. We have had three years of all spin and no substance. If we look at the whole picture, we see that the Government have failed to deliver.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. In the past year, average class sizes have fallen for key stages 1 and 2, in primary schools, and overall. We have to judge the matter in the light of the Leader of the Opposition's pledge to do away with other "gimmicky" money—the money that we are putting in to reduce class sizes for children aged five, six and seven. We said at the election that we would do that, and we are delivering on that pledge. The Tories would take that money away if they ever got into power.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal programme. [127932]

The new deal is one of the most comprehensively evaluated programmes ever. We have used the evidence to help us develop our strategy for continuously improving the new deal, and to build on its success still further. I announced further measures to achieve that earlier this week.

I thank the Minister for her reply, light on detail though it was. She will recall that she told the Select Committee on Education and Employment on 17 May that the new deal for young people had so far cost the taxpayer £611 million. She said that that equated to a cost of just under £4,000 per job created. Will she confirm that she arrived at that figure only by including some jobs that lasted for less than a day, and others that lasted for less than 13 weeks? Did she not also include jobs that are subsidised, and choose to disregard the Government's own estimate that 60 per cent. of people going into jobs through the new deal would have got those jobs in any case?

I would like to offer the hon. Gentleman one of the numeracy classes that we announced this week would be available for young people entering the new deal. The Tories seem to have taken an incomplete lesson from Mark Twain, who said:

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as you please.

If he will make a statement on progress towards his target of 80 per cent. of pupils achieving level 4 in literacy tests at key stage 2. [127933]

We inherited a situation in which 56 per cent. of 11-year-olds had reached the acceptable level of ability at reading and writing. Last year, we achieved 71 per cent. of children reaching level 4 at that age. We were very pleased to find an even bigger increase in the reading skills of youngsters of that age.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and invite him to join me in congratulating the pupils and teachers of Slough. Just after I was elected, only 58 per cent. of children there were reaching level 4 and above at key stage 2, but last year the proportion had risen to 68 per cent. I am confident that the figure will continue to improve in the coming year.

Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech. We have heard the question.

I congratulate the heads and teachers working so hard with pupils in Slough, and hope that we see substantial further improvement in the youngsters' results from the end of May. This year, through the standards fund, we are putting £200 million into the literacy and numeracy programmes. That involves the employment of 300 co-ordinators throughout the country, working with schools on the programme and reinforcing the use of phonics, grammar and spelling. If those resources, those co-ordinators and that work with the schools were to be withdrawn, the Conservatives would take us back to the position we inherited in 1997. The previous Government evangelised and pleaded, but they did nothing to raise standards.

Will the Secretary of State admit that the rate of improvement has been no greater during the Government's term of office than it was under the previous Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] By how much have literacy standards at key stage 3 improved over the past two years, and by how much did they improve in the previous two years?

I have just spelled out that there was a 15-point improvement in literacy, from 56 to 71 per cent. I do not recall the exact figures for the years between 1994 and 1997, but there certainly was not an improvement from 41 to 56 per cent. If there had been, we would have adopted the policy that Opposition Members were then following—which was to do sod all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will—

I immediately apologise. That was entirely unparliamentary language, and I have corrected myself.

Order. I am grateful to the Secretary of State that, on prompting, he corrected himself.

What measures he is taking to increase knowledge of the internet among those in full-time education. [127934]

We have provided an improved and strengthened curriculum in information and communication technology, better advice to teachers—including a £230 million teacher training programme—and an unprecedented increase in equipment and resources to schools. The pupil-computer ratio in primary schools has reduced from 1:18 to 1:13, and internet access has improved dramatically—62 per cent. of primary schools are now connected to the internet, compared with only one in six in 1997.

Is the internet not a wonderful new resource for those in full-time education, enabling them to research their work in greater depth and breadth than was possible using traditional means? Is it not also a marvellous new way in which those in education can publish their own creative work to a huge audience? Would it not give a marvellous impetus if the Government added to the great work that they have done in that area by holding a competition to encourage schools that produce excellent work, and publishing that work on the Department's website?

I thank my hon. Friend. I agree that these technologies provide unprecedented opportunities for children to improve their education. We are already seeing evidence that they are driving up standards. I welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion, which will form part of our continuing review aimed at improving the national grid for learning.

Does the Minister accept that the delivery of education via the internet is subject to the same restrictions as other forms of education so far as partisan propaganda is concerned? In particular, does he realise that the Education Act 1986, which said that politically controversial subjects must be treated even-handedly, is being blatantly disregarded by the No. 10 website? I have in my hand an internet printout of an interview in which the Minister for Europe answers questions from schoolchildren on European unification. It is totally one-sided propaganda, with no indication of the arguments against the case.

Order. Time is passing, and the hon. Gentleman must ask his question.

To be honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was rather lost as the hon. Gentleman put out his own propaganda. He has fundamentally missed the point of new technologies. Use of the internet to deliver the curriculum fundamentally drives up standards. That is why we are investing so much money in it. It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the opportunities that it offers.