If she will visit schools in Staffordshire to assess the condition of the (a) buildings, (b) heating and (c) associated infrastructure. [14632]

The Secretary of State has no current plans to visit schools in Staffordshire. Staffordshire has, as requested by the Department, already carried out an assessment of the condition of its school buildings. Since 1997, £92 million has been provided to help meet the capital investment needs of schools in the county, and £39 million more has been allocated for the next two years.

Well, that would seem to be a rather complacent reply on behalf of the Secretary of State, which is, perhaps, not typical of her. She may well know that, two or three weeks ago, head teachers from throughout Staffordshire came to the House of Commons to meet all the county's Members of Parliament and talk about their budgets. Duncan Meikle, the headmaster of King Edward VI school in Lichfield, said that his budget for those services has already run out this year, and pointed out that it is the worst budget he has had since he became headmaster of the school four years ago. Is it not typical of Education Ministers, like Health Ministers, that they talk about millions, even billions, of pounds, but when it comes down to it, services are getting worse?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that his question was about capital, not services. We are not complacent; we are investing a massive amount of extra money in schools. Four in five of Lichfield schools have already benefited from targeted capital allocations since the election, and all Lichfield schools, like all the schools in every constituency, have benefited from direct funding through the new deal for schools. Over the next three years, £22 million more will be going direct to Staffordshire schools, and if the hon. Gentleman talks to two of Lichfield's head teachers, he will find that they are part of the asset management forum in Staffordshire and they can tell him exactly what the plans are for capital investment in his county.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the problems with Staffordshire schools and their buildings stem from the years and years of under-investment under Tory Governments? Does he accept that, in my constituency, although there are complaints about the needs of school buildings, many schools are seeing real benefits from the extra money being provided for capital spending?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right, of course. We faced a massive backlog after two decades of Tory under-investment in our schools, and we still need to catch up in Staffordshire. The new asset management plan, prepared by the local education authority with schools, shows that over the next five years £72 million is needed for the county's schools. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that £52 million has already been allocated for the next two years.

But can the Minister guarantee that capital spending in Staffordshire schools will not be financed through the sale of school playing fields? In a year when there has been a 60 per cent. increase in the number of playing fields being sold by the Government, is it not time that they started to live up to their promise to stop the sale of playing fields, or is the former Minister for Sport right when she says that the Government have lost the plot on the issue?

When the Conservatives were in power they did not keep any check on the sale of school playing fields. There are new rules and new controls, and under this Government the number of playing fields sold has been way down on the number sold under the, Conservative Government, and the proceeds of sales are earmarked for education purposes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituency has enjoyed unprecedented capital investment over the last four years? We have a new primary school, several new computer suites and science laboratories, new extensions and additional nursery provision. However, I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that one local school has just suffered a devastating fire, in which the catering buildings and gym facilities were totally destroyed. Will he congratulate the school, the staff, the LEA, the pupils and the governors on the magnificent way in which they have coped in very difficult circumstances over the last two weeks? The school was closed for only one day, and Staffordshire LEA now—

Order. I think that the Minister has got the drift.

First, I pay tribute to the experience and expertise my hon. Friend brings to the subject as a former member of the Education Committee and one who knows a great deal about the system. It is telling that the picture of the education system that she paints differs starkly from the one painted by the Conservatives.

What recent discussions she had on student finance with the Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales. [14633]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the Welsh Assembly covering a range of issues, including student finance.

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, however brief. She will be familiar with the contents of the National Assembly's Rees report, which in June showed that student debt had increased threefold since the abolition of the maintenance grant; and that the greatest debt was found among students from the poorest backgrounds, who were most likely to drop out of university because of financial problems and least likely to enter university in the first place because of the psychological barrier of having to borrow, in some cases, more than their parents earn in a year. Does she agree with her Labour colleague in the National Assembly that the best way to widen participation in higher education is to reintroduce the maintenance grant? If she will not endorse that position, will she at least devolve powers over higher education funding to Wales so that we might at last get the system that best suits our circumstances?

We want to increase the number of students from working class backgrounds who go through higher education, but it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We need to raise their attainment at school so that they get the necessary qualifications to go to university, and we need to raise their aspirations. As I have said before, almost half of young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds do not during their school years hear about university as an option for them. Until we change that, we will not get those young people into university.

The Minister will be aware that one of the reasons why some Members voted against the introduction of tuition fees was their likely effect on mature students entering higher education. Will she comment on figures for the period since tuition fees were introduced, which show about 7,000 fewer mature students now entering higher education?

I have to say that my hon. Friend's figures are not correct. This year's acceptance figures—we do not have entry figures—from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service show an increase of 12.5 per cent. in the number of 21 to 24-year-olds accepted, and an increase of 7.7 per cent. for those aged 25 plus. We should compare that with the increase of less than 2 per cent. in the number of Scottish people entering university. It is now generally accepted that people who gain a personal advantage from university education in terms of increased earnings over a lifetime, which average out at about £400,000, should make a contribution to the cost of that post-compulsory education. The issue is how and in what way.

How many teacher vacancies there are in secondary schools in the south-east; and if she will make statement. [14634]

Systematic data on teacher vacancies are collected once a year, in January, as part of the annual census of teachers and vacancies. In January this year, authorities in the south-east recorded 548 vacancies in secondary schools.

I saw some of those data: as they related to Hampshire, they showed 175 teacher vacancies in maintained schools as a whole, rising to 291 if nearby Portsmouth, Southampton and Isle of Wight are included. Might the reason for that unacceptably high number of vacancies be that, as recent research by Professor Smithers of Liverpool university shows, almost 60 per cent. of trainee teachers either never make it into the classroom at all, or resign within three years? Is that not a deplorable and unsatisfactory—indeed, intolerable—state of affairs?

Let me begin by inviting the hon. Gentleman to join me in congratulating schools in Hampshire on the achievement of 54.9 per cent. of their youngsters gaining five or more good GCSEs in the results published today. That is a very good achievement, and I certainly pay tribute to all the teachers and schools in Hampshire who have contributed to that result.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping a cool head during the summer, when so many people on the Opposition Benches were calling "Crisis, crisis" and predicting short-term working in schools? I urge him to continue a pragmatic approach to shortages, to consider the problems on the ground and to make the appropriate responses. The Department has been doing that; I hope that it will continue to do so and will ignore those calls about crises that do not actually come about.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. We have always made it clear that we need more teachers. Our target is for at least an additional 10,000 over the lifetime of this Parliament. We made the announcement, and confirmed in the White Paper, that we shall write off loans over 10 years for shortage subject teachers entering the profession from September 2002. That is exactly in line with the course of action advocated by my hon. Friend and I agree with the points that he made.

Does the Minister agree that our head teachers deserve enormous credit for the work that they have done during the past few months to ensure that the crisis in teaching did not have the worst possible effect on our pupils? They deserve great credit for that, but when and what will the Government do to alleviate the pressure on head teachers, to find ways of dealing with teacher shortages and to provide real solutions to problems that will eventually show up in the quality of our education?

It is good to hear a tribute to head teachers from the Opposition Benches. I am happy to endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman; it certainly is a tribute to the hard work of heads and schools during the summer. Many head teachers worked right through the summer holiday to ensure that their schools were operating normally—as every school has done since September. That is in contrast to the predictions of some people, including some Opposition Members, earlier in the summer.

Last year, Ramsgate school in my constituency had problems with teacher recruitment and it was joint bottom in the league table. The school resolved its teacher recruitment problems by taking a generous view of pay scales and is now fully staffed, but this year it remains at the bottom of the league table. Will my hon. Friend agree that that is entirely due to the evil and corrosive system of selective education that we operate in Kent. which condemns schools such as Ramsgate school to be, in effect, sink schools? Although we should not be complacent about teacher recruitment, will my hon. Friend give some thought to ordering an inquiry into selective education in Kent, so that Ramsgate can recover?

I have heard the point made by my hon. Friend and others will have done so too. Wherever there are low standards of achievement in our schools, we are providing additional support. Last year, 41 schools had less than 10 per cent. of their pupils achieving five or more good GCSEs; that number has come down to 17, which is an important step. However, there are still serious problems of under-achievement; we will provide support and help to deal with them wherever they arise.

Will the Minister respond on the issue of teacher vacancies, which is of special concern in my own constituency, where a number of secondary schools have seven, eight or, in some cases, more vacancies? There is a crisis in schooling in Hertfordshire and many other counties in the south-east. Will the Minister comment on the recent National Union of Teachers report which, among other things, states that four out of 10 teachers leaving the profession do so because of the sheer weight of Government initiatives; they feel that that is a burden they should not have to deal with.

I have dealt with those figures already and made it clear that they are incorrect. We are aware of the pressures on teacher recruitment in Hertfordshire—one of the areas to benefit from the starter home initiative, which will be particularly helpful to younger teachers wanting to buy their first home. We have demanded a great deal from our teachers in work load over the past four years; they have delivered a great deal in response, and we should pay tribute to their achievements. Where there are pressures on recruitment, we are addressing them in the way that I have already outlined.

What recent representations she has received on the issue of religious schools. [14635]

I have received a number of representations on faith schools from organisations and the general public since the publication of the White Paper.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's answer. May I suggest that the last thing our society needs at the moment is more schools segregated by religion? Before 11 September, it looked like a bad idea; it now looks like a mad idea. We have had some splendid policy rethinks recently; will my right hon. Friend give us another one today?

My hon. Friend is concerned about divisions in society and different groups living and working in different areas; I share his concern. However, the problem is not caused by parents having the right to educate their children in a faith-based school. My hon. Friend should not land the whole issue of segregated communities on faith schools, as they do not cause it. However, there is an issue about bringing up our children to be tolerant and understanding and to appreciate people from different faiths and cultures. That is why I know that my hon. Friend will have welcomed the inclusion of citizenship in the national curriculum from September. There is a great deal to do but, for centuries, people in this country have been tolerant of parents' wish to have a faith-based education. That has been granted to Christians and Jews; I do not want to be a Secretary of State who denies it to minority faiths.

Does the Secretary of State accept that no Church school in receipt of state funds should be able to discriminate in its admissions policy against children of other faiths and those with no faith at all? Given her comments on inclusiveness and comments by the Bishop of Blackburn and, indeed, Muslim associations, will she give the House a guarantee that faith schools and new faith schools will have inclusive policies and that, if necessary, she will introduce legislation to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of faith?

No, I will not go that far, but perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. In the case of over-subscription, it is reasonable for a faith-based school to say that it wants to give preference to those who share its faith. However, as I said to the Church of England—I pay tribute to Ron Dearing and the Church of England for their entirely inclusive attitude to Church of England faith-based schools—there is an obligation and a challenge, which are not being completely met at present, to make sure that children in faith-based schools have opportunities to meet, mix and work with people from other faith-based schools and schools of no faith at all. That change should take place. Under the new rules, new faith schools must show that they are inclusive; they could do so through admissions arrangements, which I welcome, but, if not, they must show school organisation committees ways in which they will be inclusive.

Many of us on the Labour Benches and beyond wish that the horse had not bolted 150 years ago, and that we had secular education, as is the case in America. However, the horse has bolted. In the communities that I represent, more than 27 per cent. practise the Muslim faith, and that number is growing. Does my right hon. Friend accept that greater damage is done by the hypocrisy that those people see reinforced when members of faiths whose numbers are diminishing have a protected right to faith-based schools, which they are denied? Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is far more dangerous for our communities than allowing people to educate their children in a regulated faith-based school of their choice?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not know what message it gives about a multicultural society if people who are not Christians or Jews are told that they are the only group who cannot have faith-based schools.

Does the Secretary of State have any plans that could reduce the percentage of Catholic pupils at Catholic schools?

No.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments. In one of my Church of England schools, 90 per cent. of the pupils are Muslim. That demonstrates that faith schools can work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in some areas where we extend the number of religious schools, it could lead to further self-segregation, which would fly in the face of what some of us are trying to achieve—greater integration?

I entirely respect my hon. Friend's comments. I know her constituency and I know of her extensive work with the Muslim community. She makes, an interesting point. In Birmingham, as in her constituency, there are maintained schools which are 100 per cent. Muslim. Children in faith-based schools are not always predominantly from one culture or another. Whether or not there are more faith-based schools will not depend on me or on Government; such decisions will be taken locally. It is not our wish to encourage them proactively. There must be a level playing field. Until 1997, every time a religious group other than a Jewish or Christian one asked for a faith-based school, it was denied it by the former Tory Government. We have moved to introduce a level playing field. That is all I ask. Whether my hon. Friend's community has more faith schools will be up to that community and the school organisation committee.

The headmaster and governing body of the Henbury high school in my constituency—an important secondary school to the west of Macclesfield—have expressed an interest in becoming a faith school. Although I am a strong supporter of faith schools and Church schools, can the Secretary of State clarify whether the final decision wi11 be taken by the governing body or by a majority of the parents of children who are at the school or are likely to go to the school? If that school subsequently merges with another school, would the second school with which it is to be merged be bound by the faith status that Henbury might have achieved?

The hon. Gentleman asks me a detailed question about two schools in west Macclesfield, and I should hate to mislead the House. I am happy to clarify in a subsequent letter the details that I shall give now. My feeling is that the decision would be taken by the governing body. When a school merges, it keeps its existing status. However, it is a technical matter and I am not entirely confident about giving the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer now. I hope that he will allow me to clarify it in due course.

What progress is being made in ensuring a nursery place is available for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it. [14636]

What progress she has made in providing free nursery places for three and four-year-olds whose parents require it. [14641]

Since September 1998, all four-year-olds have had access to a free part-time nursery education place. About 62 per cent. of three-year-olds already have access to a free part-time nursery place. I expect that level to rise to 66 per cent. by March 2002, with universal provision by September 2004.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is her assessment of the number of three-year-olds in Dorset who are offered nursery places? Given the difficulties in recruiting staff for nursery schools in the rural part of my constituency, which are due to transport and remuneration problems, will she encourage and work with Dorset local education authority to ensure that rut al needs are addressed, possibly through a multi- agency approach such as that proposed by the By The Seaside charity, which is based in Swanage?

First, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that 64 per cent. of three-year-olds in Dorset have access to a nursery education place—a level that is above the national average. Secondly, I recognise the particular difficulties that are faced in ensuring access to places for children in rural areas. We are doing a number of things about that, including undertaking a very strong recruitment campaign, which is successful. It might well be that we can provide a high-quality experience to young children through child minders, working together in networks. Of course, we will work with all voluntary organisations in all areas to ensure that all our children get access to good, high-quality nursery education.

I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend's initial reply on universal nursery places, although I wonder whether I should declare an interest as the very proud grandfather of two-year-old Ryan Tomos. I have a picture in my wallet that I could show to her later. Will she inform me of the total increase in all education expenditure since 1997?

As the very proud grandma of a three-year-old, of whom I have plenty of pictures in my wallet and who has just started in her new nursery class, which I had the privilege of visiting a couple of weeks ago, I share with my hon. Friend the joy of being a grandparent—it is all love and no blame.

Is the Minister aware that half the pupils in the intake of a secondary school in a relatively affluent area of my constituency have a reading age of less than their chronological age, and that 30 per cent. of them have a reading age of two years less than their chronological age? What does she see as the root causes of that problem?

I am assuming that the hon. Gentleman was referring to a primary school—

It is a secondary school, but—

Order. In that case, the hon. Gentleman's question is out of order.

While many parents will welcome what the Minister has said about the availability of nursery places at primary schools for many children, does she agree that many parents prefer a less formal style of education for three and four-year-olds, which can be provided, for example, by pre-school and nursery groups and by child minders? Is not she concerned that there has been a significant fall in the number of pre-school playgroup places that are available? Some 300 closures have occurred throughout the country and 12 in Wiltshire alone. What is she doing to ensure that no undue influence is placed on parents to encourage the inclusion of children in three and four-year-old primary school intakes, thereby putting the pre-school playgroups at risk?

I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that what matters is providing parents with appropriate choices—a child minder, playgroup, or a place in a primary or nursery school—so that they can decide what they want. Our policies are based on that. If more parents choose nursery classes in primary schools or classes in nursery schools, that is up to them. We need to ensure that places and funding are available in the private, voluntary and state sector: we are doing precisely that.

Last year, there were approximately 200 funded places for three-year-olds in the Medway towns. We now have 2,300 places, which is clearly due to the failure to invest that Conservative Members talk about. We want that failure to continue.

The quality of the child's experience, wherever he or she is placed—in a playgroup, with a child minder or in a nursery class—depends entirely on the quality of the person who cares for and teaches the child. Investment in training is crucial. We have therefore asked the Learning and Skills Council to put a lot of money aside to ensure proper investment in and training for people who work with young children. We have also set clear targets for the qualifications that we want them to achieve. We want to improve that over time. We acknowledge the importance of the early years stage by investing in training and ensuring good qualifications.

I am happy to articulate the feeling of the House that we would never have guessed that the Minister could be a grandmother. [Interruption.] That was meant as a compliment. However, one never ceases to be amazed at what a Minister can do with statistics.

I have to say to my hon. friend that, as a recent mum, she will find many more places for her child than existed for my children when I had them some time ago.

The new free places that have been created in nurseries in Lancashire are welcome, but is my hon. Friend aware that difficulties have been created because some people have the allocation and some do not? When can we get over that difficulty by extending the scheme so that they all get places? It ought not to take about three months before we realise that of, say, five places allocated only three have been taken up. In that case, two places have been lost for three months that could have been given to others. The scheme is welcome, but we must ensure that it works more efficiently.

I completely agree with my hon. Friend that, in a period of expansion, there will always be difficulties until there is a place for everyone: some people will get a place and others will not. I recognise the problem that he described but, by 2004, there will be a free nursery place for every three and four-year-old—something on which I have campaigned for 30 years. It is about time that it became a reality in everyone's lives.

How many teachers left the profession within their first three years of employment in the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [14637]

In each of the past five years for which data are available., approximately 80 per cent. of teachers were still in service in the fourth year after entering to teaching.

Has the Secretary of State read the comments of Davina Lloyd, the head of Coopers Company and Coborn school—a top state school—in The Times today? She said:

"Leave us alone—let us get on with things and stop inundating us with bits of paper and bureaucracy."

I congratulate the head whom the hon. Gentleman quoted and other heads on the GCSE results which were published today. They have ensured that 50 per cent. of our 16-year-olds attain five good A^* to C passes. That is a great achievement and I pay tribute to all those who have worked hard to achieve it. If leaving people alone means allowing some schools to teach in a way that is not based on good practice and evidence, I will not do so. We would not have introduced the literacy hour, the numeracy hour or the key stage 3 strategy for our younger secondary school children if we had done so. It is our responsibility to raise standards for every child. If the hon. Gentleman means leaving alone those schools that are good, that are proving it and that are improving even more, I will leave them alone. That is the thrust of the White Paper and the Bill that will be published later this week.

At a recent meeting with secondary school heads in my constituency, I heard positive reports about the graduate teacher programme and the difference that it was making. What plans has my right hon. Friend to continue that programme and to expand it, as it is welcome on the ground and it is clearly effective?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The scheme is hugely popular. Its attraction is that it often brings in mature teachers with skills from industry and other walks of life. They train in school and receive a salary for doing so, and the school is paid as well. I think that the cost is £17,000, which, as hon. Members will know, is more than we normally pay for students to do initial teacher training. We have created more than 2,000 such places and I am conscious of the fact that it is an excellent way to train to be a teacher. We certainly plan to build on the scheme as we roll out our plan to ensure that we get even more teachers to add to the 12,000 extra whom we have got into the nation's schools.

Much mention has been made of the NUT report on teachers leaving. Does the Secretary of State not feel alarmed that that report makes it clear that significantly more secondary teachers say that the sheer weight of Government initiatives is a more important factor even than pay in driving them out of the profession? Is not it clear that her Department is not part of the solution to teacher shortages—it is a significant part of the problem?

If that is the case, how does the hon. Gentleman answer the point that this year there has been an 8 per cent. increase in the number of people going into teacher training? The House must remember that more young graduates choose teaching than any other profession, which is a tribute to the attraction that education and teaching hold. I know that teachers feel under pressure and that we have asked more of them than any previous Government, but they have raised standards in a way that has not happened for decades. I pay tribute to them for that. I also know that we need to do more to support them, but that is why there are 44,000 more teaching assistants, more bursars and more investment in information technology.

The right hon. Lady mentions trainee teachers. She knows that 60 per cent. leave the profession within three years of becoming trainees, so I am afraid that teachers will not be convinced, especially when they read the views of Lord Puttnam. The Government have put him in charge of the General Teaching Council, but he gave a newspaper interview in which he said, "All we need is fewer teachers." Will she confirm that fewer teachers is not just the side-effect of Government policy, but the target? Does she understand why teachers are so demoralised under her Government?

The hon. Gentleman did not listen at the last Question Time and he is not listening again. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already made it clear that the NUT figures are not accurate. In answer to the question—[Interruption.] Do not thrust NUT research at me expecting it to be taken as gospel. The hon. Gentleman will have to learn that lesson pretty quickly. After three years in teaching, 80 per cent. are still in the profession.

Does the Secretary of State accept that a number of teachers have left the William Crane comprehensive school in my constituency? It appears near the bottom of the league tables. Does she also accept that most of those teachers have stayed the course and that it is difficult for teachers on tough estates with poor catchment areas to raise standards? To raise standards by even 1 or 2 per cent. is a near-miraculous achievement. Will she take the chance to praise those teachers who are not in the leafy suburbs, but who work very hard with pupils and parents to raise the standard in some of our toughest schools?

All of us who have been teachers know that some of the toughest jobs are on the toughest estates with children who do not come from backgrounds and neighbourhoods with high aspirations. That is why I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that today, as well as publishing the raw data for GCSE, we have published for the first time value-added data on tests for 14-year-olds. In 2003, we shall be able to publish the raw scores and the value-added data on 16-year-olds.

How many teacher vacancies there are in Leicestershire. [14638]

In January, when the last annual census of teachers and vacancies was carried out, Leicestershire recorded 30 teacher vacancies.

We all know that the vast majority of teachers in Leicestershire and elsewhere are working extremely hard and doing a good job under difficult circumstances and for little reward. I hope that the Minister will not repeat that answer when he replies again, but will instead tell me whether he will come with me to Leicestershire to see the reality on the ground. Will he come to the schools that cannot get teachers in information and communications technology? Will he visit the schools that have to advertise five times to get a single response? Will he come to South Wigston high school, whose headmaster told me yesterday that for two years he tried to get a music teacher but could not get one? Will he address the real problems of schools in Leicestershire, not merely give us more waffle?

My right hon. Friend and I, and other colleagues, visit schools all the time. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the excellent job that teachers in Leicestershire are doing. I pay tribute to them for the substantial improvement in GCSE results in Leicestershire that were published this morning. It achieved a well above average rise. The vacancy rate in Leicestershire is about half the national average, so it is by no means an area with the most acute problems. We have increased teachers' pay, created more places on refresher courses so that former teachers can come back into the profession, and introduced golden hellos for people to train to teach in shortage subjects. Those measures are helping to improve what undoubtedly have been real problems and real pressures in schools in Leicestershire and elsewhere.

What the Government's policy is on trial by jury, following the publication of the Auld report. [14666]

The Government's policy on jury trials is set out in our manifesto, and in the document "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead". The Auld report makes a number of new proposals on juries, and the Government are consulting on them.

In the light of that answer and the Solicitor-General's consultation on the Auld report, does she agree that trial by jury should be replaced by a circuit judge and magistrates for many indictable offences, and that the decision-making process should be interfered with by juries having to give reasons for their verdicts and by the judge and the assessors having to second-guess verdicts by juries?

The hon. Gentleman is right that the substantial Auld report goes far beyond what was in our manifesto and in "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead". The Auld report recommended that juries should give reasons for their conclusions, that we should ensure ethnic balance on juries and that the right to jury trial should be removed in certain serious fraud cases. We are consulting on those proposals.

As a member of the Magistrates Association, I am aware that my colleagues have given a broad welcome to many of the recommendations in the Auld report. However, they are concerned about the status and powers of the two lay magistrates sitting with the judge, to which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) referred. Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure us that she will take a fresh look at the powers of those two lay magistrates? They should at least have powers of sentencing.

My hon. Friend will know of our manifesto commitment, and he will not need me to remind him of the importance of carrying out that commitment to remove the widely abused right of defendants alone to dictate whether they should be tried in Crown court. As for the respective roles of magistrates and the new judge in the district division, it is important to have the involvement and views of the magistrates on the relative responsibilities in the proposed new division. Consultation will take place in writing and at regional meetings throughout the country, and I hope my hon. Friend will encourage members of the Magistrates Association to come along to those consultations and put their views. The matter is not cut and dried, and is not written on tablets of stone. We genuinely want to consult on proposals that have such far-reaching implications.

I pay tribute to Lord Justice Auld, his consultants and those who assisted him. His report is comprehensive and thorough, and I am glad that there is an opportunity for further submissions to be made on it.

"in guilt decision making, the lay-body's functional role is nil Decisions are dominated by the professional"—

I am well aware that the proposals are controversial. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that we have no set policy on whether we should replace the existing system involving a magistrates court and a Crown court with a jury with a system involving an intermediate court, the district division. In other words, there is no policy of replacing the two-court system with a three-court system; that is a proposal in the Auld report, and I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to those who have put so much work into that radical and far-reaching document.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we already have a system whereby two lay magistrates sit with a judge on appeal cases? That is not particularly radical or new.

My hon. Friend makes two points. First, she reminds us that we already have a system whereby, in some cases, lay magistrates sit with a district judge. That also applies in youth courts. I recently had an opportunity to see the system working—very well—in Camberwell youth court, where a professional judge sits with two lay wing members.

I am glad to hear that the Solicitor-General and the Government have a policy on this, but does the Solicitor-General agree with Liberty that jury trial is, on the whole, fairer than trial in magistrates courts, that there should be no discrimination in regard to who can choose trial by jury, and that jury trial is fairer to black defendants?

I think that the hon. Gentleman would, rightly, be first to complain if we had made a commitment in our manifesto and did not implement it. Like him, however, we are anxious that trials should be fair—that there should be fairness as between defendant and prosecution, and fairness to the victim. Those considerations will be at the forefront of our minds, but we have a settled policy on the right to elect for trial by jury. We are consulting on the wider issues relating to juries that a number of Members have raised.

What reviews have been undertaken to discover which criminal laws have fallen into disuse in the last (a) 10 and (b) 30 years and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to repeal them. [14667]

The Law Commission is responsible for the review of all statute law and has conducted a number of major reviews of specific spheres of criminal law. The reviews identify which criminal laws have fallen into disuse, which are then dealt with in Statute Law (Repeals) Acts, the most recent of which was in 1998.

Do the Solicitor-General and the Government have any plans to present proposals to Parliament to repeal laws that have not been used in the past 10 years, and possibly not in the past 30? Is it correct that there is a proposal on the table to get rid of the blasphemy law, partly because it has not been used for a considerable time? Do the Government have any other specific laws at the front of the queue for repeal?

The most recent private prosecution under the blasphemy law was the very famous Mary Whitehouse prosecution of Gay News, and there has not been a public prosecution under the law since 1922. As the House will know, the Home Secretary, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said that he expects that that law will soon find its place in history. Nevertheless, there is still a common law offence of blasphemy. However, if a blasphemy prosecution were to be brought before that common law offence had been repealed, it would not require prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the case were heard in a magistrates court, it would be open to the DPP to step in and discontinue the prosecution, and if it were held in a Crown court the Attorney-General could step in and discontinue it. As for other offences, there is a rolling programme to consider laws on criminal offences that have fallen into disuse.

Could my right hon. and learned Friend tell my constituents, who come from various backgrounds, whether there is a case for using old laws? As I understand it, the Treason Act 1351 may apply to those who are found guilty of fighting for the Taliban and wish to return to the United Kingdom. Will she comment on that, please?

The Treason Act is still on the statute book, despite its age. If there were evidence of the commission of an offence under the Act, it would be for the DPP to bring a prosecution, and the Law Officers would be accountable to the House for that decision. The police have already asked for information and advice on prosecuting for treason, and that advice has been given. As my hon. Friend will know, however, many other offences may be brought into play, not only when the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill is enacted, but under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Law Officers will be accountable to the House for a decision by the DPP or by ourselves, acting under our consent provisions, to bring prosecutions for treason.