What plans he has to increase pre-school and after-school child care provision. [81967]

On 15 July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced, as part of the spending review, plans to more than double child care spending and create 250,000 new child care places by 2006. In addition, we shall also be encouraging schools to provide and host a range of services, including child care, for the local community through our extended schools programme.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he recognise the work of the Redbridge early-years and child care partnership on delivering excellent pre-school and after-school services with resources provided by the Government through sure start and other excellent initiatives? Will he also congratulate it on the recent award of a new opportunities fund boost of £200,000?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments and I am pleased to congratulate Redbridge on that. I know that she has a long-standing interest in providing the best possible early-years services in Redbridge. Indeed, she was a founding member of the Redbridge under-fives. The experience in her area demonstrates the importance of investment in such services.

I hope that the Minister has had time to read my Adjournment debate of last night on pre-schools. Sadly, no Education Minister was present to hear it. Will he take up my plea to cut the regulatory burden on pre-schools? They have Ofsted reports every year whereas primary schools have them only every five years. Their child profiles are 16 pages long and they have to have 24 policies, even though some of the pre-schools, like the wonderful Blackditch Bunnies in Stanton Harcourt which I visited recently, have fewer than 20 children.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not having had the opportunity to read what I am sure was an excellent debate. It is this Government who have invested in early years, including pre-schools, via our funding of the nursery programme. I am happy to look at the detailed points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I recall that before 1997 pre-schools were closing up and down the country. Thanks to our investment in early years, new pre-schools are opening up and down the country.

Many of our children in Amber Valley benefit hugely from breakfast clubs and out-of-school provision. Will my hon. Friend ensure that funding for the current schemes continues when the new opportunities fund ends? Many clubs cannot be sustained by simply asking parents to pay, because they are in poorer areas.

I know that those breakfast clubs and other out-of-school activities have made a real difference. We want to ensure that they are sustainable because the benefits that they bring are educational, social and economic. In my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham), I said that our extended schools programme has great potential. I think new investment will be available not only for breakfast clubs, but for after-school facilities as well.

Is it not a frightful waste of money that pre-school settings and other educational establishments are employing people they cannot use because of delays in the Criminal Records Bureau system? Is the Minister aware of the length of those delays? What action is he taking with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to put things right?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. The issue is serious and I agree with him. We are working with the Home Office and Ofsted to clear the backlog of delays. They are unacceptable and we want the problem resolved as quickly as possible.

What plans he has to allow more schools to obtain specialist status. [81968]

I am pleased to announce today that the Government intend to remove the cap on national funding to support specialist schools. This means that every school in England which meets the required standard will from today be able to join the specialist schools programme.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome answer and his announcement. What support will be given to schools that apply for specialist status and do not meet the requirements, not because of financial reasons, but because their plan is deemed to be not good enough? It is demoralising for schools that are in difficult circumstances which want to take advantage of that opportunity to fall at the first hurdle.

My hon. Friend is right. Support is offered through the technology colleges trust and local education authorities. I congratulate the director of education in my hon. Friend's city of Sheffield for the work that is being done to enable all the authority's schools that want to become specialist to achieve that by 2006, provided that they meet the quality standard. At the moment, 10 out of 27 schools in Sheffield are specialist, but I hope that my announcement today will help all schools to become specialist with support from the technology colleges trust and the local education authority.

Does the Secretary of State accept Ofsted's view that specialist schools should not be assessed as a homogenous group because specialist sports colleges, for example, have seen no real improvement in standards, whereas the best performing are those that specialise in languages; and that diversity does not, in itself, drive up standards? Have not we reached the point at which we must stop obsessing about structure and start looking at the philosophy behind the way in which teachers teach and the way in which they are trained?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point, in that it is right to look at particular schools in a particular way rather than to generalise across disciplines. His comments about Ofsted are not entirely accurate. Research by Ofsted confirmed that for the vast majority of schools already in the programme, specialist status has helped to sustain or accelerate the pace of school improvement. "School improvement" is the key phrase, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the scheme is to develop school improvement programmes across the whole range.

Will my right hon. Friend look closely not only at Ofsted's evidence to our Committee yesterday but at the evidence from a range of academics who are concerned about the relationship between the investment in specialist schools, which is a great deal of taxpayers' money, and results? We know that good schools become specialist schools, but as yet specialist schools are not producing good schools. However, it would be churlish not to welcome the announcement that many more schools will be able to benefit from specialist status.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome, and I shall look very closely at his Committee's conclusions. I have considered the evidence given to the Committee in hearings earlier this week, and a number of interesting points were made. However, anyone who doubts the contribution of the specialist programme to the process of driving up standards in schools, by providing focus and an opportunity to develop different aptitudes, is missing an important point. That is why I was so pleased to be able to announce today that the opportunity to take part in that dynamic and positive programme will be extended to all schools in the country.

The Secretary of State clearly believes in specialist schools. He will be aware that in Northern Ireland, where schools are able to specialise by academic selection, GCSE results are 14 per cent. better than in England, A-level results are 13 per cent. better, and 20 per cent. fewer children leave school with no qualifications. What lessons does he draw from that for the specialist schools programme in England?

I do not draw the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman obviously does, which is that the 11-plus should be reintroduced throughout England. It would extraordinary if the Conservative party nailed its flag to 11-plus selection. The lesson that I learn is that the more focus schools have and the more their ethos encourages learning, the better they do. That is why I think that the specialist programme is positive and why I am so pleased to announce its extension today—it is the right way to go.

How many classroom assistants are employed in (a) the west midlands and (b) England. [81969]

The full-time equivalent number of support staff in maintained schools in the west midlands in January 2002 was 23,082. That includes more than 11,000 teaching assistants, more than 5,000 administrative staff, 1,775 technicians and nearly 5,000 other staff.

What proposals does my hon. Friend have for career development for classroom assistants? Is he happy with their salary levels, which I believe are minimum wage?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are 80,000 more classroom assistants than there were five or six years ago. I had the pleasure of seeing, in Liverpool, a pioneering scheme to create a career path to allow teaching assistants to become classroom teachers. Classroom assistants' pay is a matter for local authorities and is determined locally. I know from my area that pay varies throughout the country, but I have not heard that assistants are on the minimum wage.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued heavy investment in education which the Chancellor confirmed in his pre-Budget report yesterday is leading to good results in the numbers of classroom assistants and teachers? Is he aware that in my constituency, for example, Limbrick Wood primary school, which only three years ago was in special measures, has now made a remarkable turnaround and is achieving results above national average at key stage 2? Will he find an early opportunity to visit the school, where he will be most welcome, as in Coventry generally?

That is a very tempting offer. I was in Coventry two weeks ago, and am sorry to have missed that opportunity. I am happy to congratulate Limbrick Wood primary school on its outstanding achievement. My hon. Friend will know that in 1997, about 560 schools were in special measures, but that number has now about halved. I look forward to taking in Limbrick Wood primary school on a future visit to the region.

As an ex-head teacher, I greatly valued the classroom assistants who worked for me for a number of years. What does the Minister mean by high-level teaching assistants? If he means classroom assistants teaching formally, does he not agree that that destroys the ideal of a full graduate profession, for which we fought for many years when I was a very young man just starting teaching?

I am sure that the young man on the Back Benches agrees that high-level teaching assistants such as language specialists, laboratory technicians and music specialists who come into classes can make a genuine contribution to the learning of young people. It is important to point out that all classroom assistants work under the direction of qualified teachers. Teaching remains a graduate profession, but those graduates will be in charge of a wider range of support staff, from secretaries right up to high-level teaching assistants. That reinforces teacher professionalism, and is certainly not a threat to it.

What steps he is taking to widen participation in further and higher education. [81970]

Extending opportunity in both further and higher education is central to our aims. We announced the most ambitious programme ever for further education last week—a £1.2 billion expansion. Our excellence challenge programme for higher education is already encouraging wider participation and the strategy that we will publish in January will take that forward.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but does she agree that a principal barrier to wider participation, particularly in further education, is the fact that far too many parents at home and people at work simply cannot read, write and add up adequately? What targets have the Government set to improve adult literacy and numeracy?

I fully agree that it is an indictment of us all that 7 million adults do not have the basic literacy and numeracy skills needed to prosper in society and employment. We have set an ambitious target of 1.5 million achieving those basic skills by 2007, and I am proud that in the past 12 months, 250,000 have gained the required qualifications.

The Minister will recognise that, historically, further education has been a Cinderella subject, particularly in the present debate about higher education. In the City of Westminster in my constituency, we have a thriving further education college which I recently visited. One of the main problems there is funding for English as a supplementary language. Does the Minister have any thoughts about how we can ensure that from all the debate about funding further and higher education there emerges a ring-fenced fund to that end?

We are extremely proud of the fact that we have been able to put a 19 per cent. real-terms increase into funding for further education colleges over the next three years. That will bring them back to the centre by providing them with the resources to deliver wider participation and higher standards. The issue of funding English as a foreign language is critical to building community cohesion among the many people who are joining us in this country. Our difficulty is finding enough teachers, but we are working on that.

I wholly welcome my hon. Friend's statement about extra money going into further education. Does she agree that widening participation in further and higher education is crucial to areas like mine, which is in economic regeneration, particularly for people who have lost out at the age of 18 and discovered their motivation in their twenties and thirties? Will she therefore ensure that in their review of funding for higher education in particular, the Government will do nothing to damage widening participation?

I share my right hon. Friend's passion for widening participation in both further and higher education. My constituency is not unlike his—participation in post-16 education, both further education and higher education, is far lower than I would like. I can give my right hon. Friend an assurance that ensuring that young people, whatever their background, have access to further and higher education is central to our work.

Given the continuing fiasco of the Department's handling of individual learning accounts, it is not surprising that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took it upon himself yesterday to announce yet another new target in that area, this time an increase to 90 per cent. post-16 participation in education and training. Given that it is almost as easy for any Minister to announce a new target as it is to miss an old one, will this particular Education and Skills Minister commit herself to resign if the new target is missed?

I will resign as and when I think that I have acted inappropriately. Sadly for the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that stage has yet been reached. The target announced by the Chancellor yesterday was a much better target because, for the first time, we have brought together into one target the vocational and the academic education of young people from the age of 16, to achieve a seamless progression. The purpose is to ensure that we deal with the very poor staying-on rates of young people at 16—one of the legacies that we inherited from the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister with responsibility in that area, which is one of the areas that we intend to put right.

Given that the new target focuses on young people in traditional academic disciplines as well as in modern apprenticeships and craft disciplines, how can we interest young people in the opportunities that exist in further education and training for craft skills and modern apprenticeships, which the economy needs and in which they need qualifications?

I hope that a number of the initiatives we are taking will support that objective, which I share with my hon. Friend. The educational maintenance allowances that we piloted have shown an encouraging increase in the number of young people choosing to participate, in the pilot areas. The reforms that we shall bring forward in the 14-to-19 curriculum will introduce new pathways into vocational education alongside more general education, which again will encourage more young people into that. The taskforce that we established yesterday, which will be led by people in the field—those who require the apprenticeships—will bring more understanding of the problems, so that we can reach the objective that my hon. Friend and I share.

What the funding per head is in secondary schools in (a) Leicestershire and (b) England and Wales. [81971]

In 2002–03 Leicestershire's funding per pupil in secondary schools is £3,390. The average for schools in England is £3,850.

Is it not a fact that, like the Government's overdraft, which is getting worse, the amount of money available to children in Leicestershire under the current arrangements is getting worse? Whereas it used to be 10 per cent., current projections—I have checked the figures with the Library—make it look as though it will be 11 per cent. next year, which is the worst it has ever been in the county and certainly worse than it was under the Conservative Administration. Has not the time come to adopt option 5 in the proposals, which would stop the arrangement whereby additional educational needs are made the top priority, and would put more money and more emphasis on the basic allowance per pupil? That would be a much fairer system. What does the Minister propose to do about it?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate the Government on increasing the standard spending assessment in Leicestershire by £18 million in the past year. I take seriously his concerns about the consultation that is currently under way and on which my right hon. Friend will make announcements in December. We take seriously all the representations that we have had from Leicestershire and elsewhere about the reforms to the system, and the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a little longer to find out our conclusions. However, I can tell him that the basic entitlement will remain the largest element of the school funding formula. That is an important part of any system.

Along with all parents, I, as a governor of a Leicestershire school, welcome the increased expenditure that we have had since 1997, compared with the cuts in the preceding five years. Does my hon. Friend understand the frustration that parents will feel if the announcement that is made in the next couple of weeks does not substantially reduce the gap between the highest and the lowest funded education authorities in the country? Leicestershire is currently in the latter group. Even at this late stage, will my hon. Friend make a last-minute plea to ensure that the positive message that comes out is that we are addressing the enormous gap that exists, and that there is a bright future for Leicestershire schools, which will benefit from increased spending in the next few years?

I know that my hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for schools in his constituency. I assure him that a floor will be included in the new formula to ensure that there are no losers in the system, contrary to some of the disinformation that has been circulated. We are taking seriously the representations that have been made throughout the country and will make our proposals in due course.

Will the Minister explain why, in determining the new formula for Leicestershire and other English and Welsh local education authorities, he has ignored the advice of the LEAs themselves, head teacher associations, governors and managers associations, Ofsted and the Audit Commission, in rejecting activity-led funding? After 18 months of deliberations by all those organisations, why has he simply said, "I'm not having any of it"? Will he explain that?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the work of the education funding strategy group, which has made an invaluable contribution to the development of the proposals that have been made. His particular allegation relates to something called activity-led funding—the suggestion that we should make assumptions in Whitehall about how head teachers should deploy their resources in every school throughout the country. I do not think that that would be appropriate. What we are proposing is a simpler and fairer system that puts power in the hands of the head teachers. It will ensure that there is a clear basis on which every pupil is funded. At the moment, the system is based on historic funding levels and a 1991 census. That is no way to go forward, and he will see that our proposals live up to that aspiration.

Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that blunt figures of the sort that he announced for Leicestershire understate the fact that delivery of the service is wildly more expensive in some areas than others? To give one example, an office in Hemel Hempstead costs three times as much as one in Glasgow. Will he therefore bear in mind the fact that figures on disposable income and the quality of service that can be delivered for the money are the most important ones on which he should be concentrating?

I am relieved to say that I am not responsible for the funding of education in Glasgow, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the new system will be based on three very clear principles: every pupil will have a basic entitlement; there will be a recognition of any additional educational needs for every pupil; and for different parts of the country, there will be a recognition of extra costs. That will be a simple system that everyone can understand and in which people can see how the money is being passed from us down to the schools.

If he will make a statement on his policy on top-up fees for universities. [81972]

If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on student top-up fees. [81975]

If he will make a statement on the review of higher education funding. [81977]

We will publish in January a strategy document setting out our 10-year vision for the development and reform of higher education. After that, there will be further opportunity for interested parties to comment.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his response. Given the funding crisis in the university sector, does he accept that top-up fees could have a perverse effect, as students might avoid the institutions that are charging higher fees? I understand that applications to Imperial college have fallen dramatically. Does he accept that in Scotland, which is a tuition-fee-free zone, applications to higher education have increased to a 50 per cent. target, whereas in this country, our applications have stayed at the 1998 level? Will he look to a graduate or alumnus tax and to collective provision for the crisis in our education sector?

I am grateful for that question and I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a funding gap for higher education that is serious and that we must address. We must sort out the question of what the precise funding is, and it is important that individuals who pass through higher education make a contribution. The various arguments about a graduate tax, top-up fees, or whatever are very important. I share his concern that any system that we introduce should not have any intended or unintended consequences in terms of reducing access, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) mentioned in his earlier question.

When my right hon. Friend signs his name to the White Paper in January, will he make a tough political choice and reject the unelected siren voices of those who advocate student top-up fees, such as that chap Andrew Adonis, and instead bring new year joy and jubilation to the majority of Labour Members, the Secretary of State for International Development, probably most of the Cabinet and, most important, millions of youngsters and parents in hard-working families throughout the country with just enough hard-earned income to ensure that they have no chance of top-up fee abatement?

The hon. Member is a good friend, and I appreciate the way in which he put his question. If the matter were as easy as he suggested, we would already be in the position that he suggests. I like to call Mr. Adonis "Mr. Xoffice" after Professor Ted Wragg's article, which said that I had to choose between the advice of "Mr. Tony's Office", whoever he may be, and me. Mr. Adonis is slightly misrepresented in my hon. Friend's question.

Is not the fundamental fact that our university system is in crisis? Student numbers have doubled in a generation, while the unit of resource has halved. Many universities are bankrupt, staff salaries are stagnant and some of our most distinguished researchers are leaving the country. If we say what we oppose in funding, we must also say what we support. Do we not need a wider review of the university system that goes beyond the narrow parameters that the Government have announced?

My hon. Friend overstates the case a little, although I acknowledge that the 36 per cent. reduction in funding per full-time equivalent student from 1989 to 1997 has intensified all the pressures that he describes. As he implies, it means that we must confront the choices.

Is not the genuine problem the fact that we have become hooked on increasing student numbers in higher education? That has led to awful funding effects. Would not it be better to fund properly students who will benefit from higher education? We would not then have to consider top-ups.

I know that some hon. Gentlemen, especially on the Conservative Benches, subscribe to the "more is worse" school of thought on higher education. I do not. Our economy will succeed or fail in the next 20 or 30 years, depending on the productivity, effectiveness and education of our people in a competitive world economy. We were right to set our manifesto target of 50 per cent. of the population obtaining higher education qualifications.

The Secretary of State will realise the importance in university funding of the allocation of funding for research, both for educational purposes and for the relationship with industry and inward investment. Does he share my alarm at the expenditure per head across the four parts of the United Kingdom? In Northern Ireland it is only £15 a head; in England, it is £19; in Wales, £22; and in Scotland, £35. What will the right hon. Gentleman do to increase the research expenditure in universities in Northern Ireland and England?

I have not studied the particular national comparisons that the hon. Gentleman has just given me, but I will certainly do so. I agree with him that research is an absolutely vital dynamic aspect of the regeneration of economies in all parts of the United Kingdom. Universities need to be better—there are issues about the governance of universities in this regard—at going out and identifying the kind of research that will enable them to succeed, and at making things happen in a much better way. We already concentrate our state research allocation, through the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils, very sharply indeed on a relatively small number of universities.

It is understandable that the Secretary of State does not want to comment on every speculation that we hear about top-up fees, even—or perhaps especially—those floated by his own Cabinet colleagues. Will he, however, rule out at least one of them, which came in briefing papers from his own Department? It is the idea that every student, including those from poor families, should be paying fees. That sits very oddly with every other part of the Government's rhetoric. Will the right hon. Gentleman disown that idea now?

There is not an idea to disown. What I will disown is any idea that we intend to put in a system that will discriminate further than the current one already does against people wanting to come through from poorer families. There is a massive waste of talent at the moment, involving people who have the capacity to benefit from a university education and to contribute to the economy, but who simply do not come through The biggest possible indictment of the way in which the university system has evolved over these last years is that, as it has expanded, the proportion of children going into university from working class backgrounds has stayed the same. That is an indictment that we have to address, and I hope that we will do so.

I would like to think that the Secretary of State can speak with a united voice for the whole Cabinet, but that is not true either, so he needs to look closer to home at his own problems. Indeed, it seems that he cannot even speak for his own Department. If he will not disown the document that I have here, all his talk about increasing access to higher education is so much hot air, given the ideas that his own Department is floating, his admission this morning and the admission of the Minister responsible for higher education last week. She said that the Government had not just failed, but widened the social divide in higher education. Does not that show that, six years in, the Government have failed miserably to meet their aim of getting disadvantaged students to university? Will the Secretary of State therefore answer the central question: why does he think—

Order. When I rise to my feet I expect the hon. Gentleman to sit down. Perhaps we might also have a shorter answer this time.

My short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a 36 per cent. reduction in funding per student under the Conservatives.

Does my right hon. Friend agree, as I do, with our noble Friend Lord Hattersley, who wrote last week that a graduate tax was the only fair way of resolving the problems of funding in higher education, and that, to be effective, it would have to apply not only to future graduates but to present graduates such as my right hon. Friend and me?

I read what our noble Friend said with great interest, and I think that he has a real point. That is why, in the article that I wrote for The Independent on Sundayon this matter, I referred to the contribution of alumni to universities. It is striking to see how alumni in the United States make a major contribution to the endowment of universities—massively more than happens in this country. That raises precisely the question that my hon. Friend has asked, and we need to look at that matter directly.

On 8 February last year, in answer to a question on top-up fees from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the previous Secretary of State said:

"We introduced the new funding arrangements for students and for repayment precisely to avoid the universities levying additional charges."—[Official Report, 8 February 2001; Vol. 362, c. 1061.]

What has changed is that we are having an overall review of all the various funding sources in the round. What remains the case in all respects is that the state will continue to provide, under any possible picture, the absolutely giant lion's share of university funding. The question that arises then is the balance between the contribution that the individual should make—if so, how much and by what route, which is the issue that we talked about earlier—and that which any alumnus might make by the process that we have discussed, as well as that which the economy should make in relation, for example, to business that moves forward. The best way to address that issue is to have a very open debate on it, which is what I am trying to stimulate and encourage. That is the way to proceed, and I wish that other opposition parties would participate openly in the debate rather than simply make opportunist points as they come up.

What is the forecast spending by his Department on schools in the eastern region for 2002–03 to 2005–06. [81973]

In 2002–03, education revenue funding in the eastern region totals approximately £2.8 billion. That includes standard spending assessment and grant. Capital funding in the region this year is over £351 million. Figures for general funding for next year and future years will be announced in December.

Few schools in my area have not benefited from substantial building improvements and more information technology provision to create a better learning environment that results from the Government's decision to invest heavily in education. However, does my hon. Friend agree that successful learning also requires good classroom discipline, which means dealing effectively with disruptive pupils, but not just by throwing them out on the street, where they create more trouble? Will he invest part of the substantial sums that he has mentioned in more pupil referral units and consider in particular areas of the country such as mine, where provision is virtually non-existent?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is important that we continue to give head teachers the right to exclude severely disruptive pupils. Alongside that, however, we take responsibility for ensuring that excluded pupils have access to high quality and full-time education, which is why the Government were delighted to honour their commitment that, in September, all permanently excluded pupils would have access to a full-time education. We have 369 pupil referral units nationally and 60 new units have opened since January 2002. We intend for more to be developed as part of a co-ordinated behaviour and discipline strategy.

Are Ministers aware that although Wymondham high school in my constituency is 39th of 39 in terms of funding in the county of Norfolk, it is first of 39 in terms of GCSE results, despite having 19 mobile classrooms housing a third of the student population? Are they further aware that if Wymondham high school received just average funding, it would have an extra £300,000?

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear that the Secretary of State has visited the school and regards it as excellent. He is even prepared to visit it again.

What assessment he has made of progress towards the Government's target of 50 per cent. of young people participating in higher education by 2010. [819741

Our latest estimate of participation in higher education in 2001–02 is 41.5 per cent. That could be revised upwards after the new census data are finalised and reflected. We need an increase of less than one percentage point each year to achieve our target.

Since I tabled my question, the definition of the target has been changed yet again, for the fifth time. How long does the Minister expect the new target to be in place and can she explain how the House will ever know if it has been met?

The simple answer is that the definition has not been changed and we are on course to meet our target.

Will the introduction of top-up fees make hitting the target less or more likely?

Everything we do in the student funding review will be focused on ensuring that we get more and wider participation in higher education so that we can meet our target to promote inclusion and economic growth.

Given what the Minister told the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), will she guarantee that in no circumstances, as Government policy evolves, will anyone on or below average earnings be obliged to pay a top-up fee?

Like others, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we publish our strategy document in January. I look forward to discussing with him then whether he has any better proposals to ensure that universities are properly funded and that all young people, whatever their backgrounds, have access to them.

I thank my hon. Friend—indeed, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his entire team—for their close personal interest in and support for my constituency, which contains fewer young people going to university that any other United Kingdom constituency. Is my hon. Friend aware that 30 local educationalists met last Friday to discuss the problem, and that we shall be sending her a report? Is she also aware that one of our key problems is a culture of under-achievement in which parents do not aspire for their children? Will she note the contents of the report, and will she consider visiting my constituency to discuss the future of our young people with local residents and with those educationalists?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he is doing in his constituency to raise aspirations among young people and to widen participation. I look forward to visiting his constituency and talking to those who have joined him in his attempt to deal with the culture that he has described. I recognise the difficult problem to which he refers—that if we cannot persuade more young people to aim higher and see university as an option for them and not just for others, we shall have failed. My hon. Friend has set himself a major challenge in his constituency, and I support his aims.

What is the drop-out level in universities today, and what was it four years ago?

I am proud to say that the level has been maintained at 17 per cent. I am proud that, of all countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, we have the best record for keeping people in the system and ensuring that they acquire qualifications and degrees. We are never satisfied or complacent with where we are at, but we are proud of our record. The hon. Gentleman should join me in congratulating universities and students on achieving what they set out to achieve.

What recent assessment he has made of the impact of children's employment on their educational attainment. [81976]

There has been no recent assessment of the impact that children's employment has on their educational attainment. We recognise, however, that properly structured and regulated part-time work can help children's development and preparation for working life.

May I urge my hon. Friend to undertake an assessment as a matter of some urgency? As he will know, evidence suggests that moderate hours of employment can be beneficial to school-leavers' performance, but that excessive hours can be damaging. Will he instruct the Office for Standards in Education to inform schools of the possible damaging of inappropriate or excessive working hours, and also ask it, when considering the performance of local education authorities, to take account of the resources that they invest in enforcing the law on children's employment as it stands?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's longstanding interest in this matter, and I admire his balanced approach. I am not in a position to instruct Ofsted to do anything, and I am not sure that it is the right organisation to instruct; but I agree that serious problems have been identified in surveys by, for instance, the Trades Union Congress and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I am happy to look into the matter further.

If he will make a statement on future education funding in Cheshire. [81978]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and the Regions will be making a statement on local authority funding, including education funding for the coming financial year, in early December, along with the provisional settlement for 2003–04.

Does the Minister appreciate that it is totally unacceptable for a child in Cheshire to be worth £355 less than a child of similar age in Hertfordshire, a county with an equivalent cost base, given that Cheshire is one of the worst-funded shire counties in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that it would be fair to allocate the same basic allowance to each child, and that extra weighting given because of, for instance, special needs, or given to areas with specific problems, should be transparent?

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I met some 200 heads from Cheshire at a conference in the north-west, who made a number of points about the funding system. A basic level of entitlement will apply to every child in the country, and the system for the allocation of additional educational needs that she asks about will indeed be transparent. It is based on independent survey work, which will ensure a proper scientific basis for the new funding system.

If she will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in the London area. [82001]

I believe that CPS London is becoming more effective. We regard sustaining the improvement in CPS London as essential, as Londoners are entitled to the protection of a good criminal justice system. London is the focus for much serious crime, and the reputation of CPS London sets the reputation of the CPS nationally.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her response, but there is a particular aspect of efficiency on which most Londoners—indeed, most of the national population—would like an assurance: that those who perpetrate hoax calls during the fire brigades dispute are being pursued with the full vigour of the CPS in London, with a view to prosecution.

I can reassure the House that that is certainly the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidance on charging in hoax call cases, which are being fast-tracked. I am not aware of any such cases in London, but in one case in west Yorkshire, a man is awaiting sentence for making hoax calls, and another man is being prosecuted in Staffordshire for making three hoax calls. A man has been arrested in Manchester, another is awaiting sentence in Cumbria, and an ongoing investigation is taking place in Lincolnshire. These cases are being taken very seriously, as the Prime Minister said on Wednesday.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I take a particular interest in the issue of racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. Can she tell us what progress has been made in tackling racism within CPS London, with particular reference to the staff and the prosecution policy?

I welcome and endorse the stance that my hon. Friend has taken on the issue of race discrimination. It is very important that CPS London, and the CPS as a whole, is a fair and non-discriminatory employer that offers equal opportunities to all staff, both lawyers and non-lawyers. It is also very important that, whether dealing with defendants or victims, it adopts a non-racist and equal attitude. Since investigating the CPS, the Commission for Racial Equality has approved it as having proper procedures, which will be taken forward.

The Attorney-General superintends the CPS; he acts as guardian of the public interest and of public safety, irrespective of party politics. In the wake of the firefighters' strike, there is secondary picketing on the tube in London, and the threat of it elsewhere. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House that it was for the courts to decide whether such action is illegal. How can the courts so decide if the CPS, and in particular the Attorney-General, does not initiate a prosecution, and will he do so? Given that the talks have collapsed and that the firefighters' strike is on—and in the absence of CPS prosecution, particularly in respect of London—does the Attorney-General intend, in the light of his reply to me of 18 November, to seek an injunction under section 240 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, before it is too late?

The hon. Gentleman is right: in these matters, the Attorney-General's approach is concerned with the public interest, not the Government interest. However, if the question of initiating a prosecution arises, the police must first investigate and produce evidence of an offence for the CPS to consider. They have not done so in relation to any picketing offences, so it has not fallen to the CPS to consider files brought forward by the police concerning the suitability of prosecution.

There remain grave misgivings about the conduct of the Crown Prosecution Service and others in the Burrell case. In the other place on 6 November, in reply to my noble Friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, the Attorney-General by implication criticised both the prosecution and the judge in relation to a public interest immunity application. Many would argue that more trenchant criticism was deserved. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that the application should never have been made and assure the House that steps will be taken to ensure that there is no further abuse of public interest immunity by the CPS?

Order. The hon. Gentleman has done very well so far.

There has been no abuse of public interest immunity by the CPS. If there had been, the Attorney-General and I would have taken it with absolute seriousness. If the prosecution has information that could help the defence, it is under a duty to disclose it, and in no circumstances should such information be withheld. That is fundamental to our principles of justice. There was never any intention to proceed in the Burrell case withholding information that could have helped the defence. The question was whether the CPS was to drop the case, in which case disclosure did not arise, or whether it was to proceed, in which case there would have been disclosure. It would have been quite wrong to go ahead with the case without disclosing the information that the Queen had subsequently given.

But does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there remains some public unease about the Burrell case, despite what she has said and what the Attorney-General has said in another place? That unease is certainly not confined to hardline republicans. Have any lessons been learned by the CPS in this case?

The Crown Prosecution Service learns lessons from all its cases, as is right and proper. I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that there is no need for any public unease about this case. If anything was going wrong with prosecutions, the Attorney-General and I would be absolutely on to it, I would disclose it fully to the House, and we would want action taken to sort it out. That is not so in this case. I hope that hon. Members will accept that, and feel reassured accordingly.

What recent representations she has received on prosecution of serious fraud cases. [82002]

When she next expects to meet representatives of small firms organisations to discuss policy on prosecutions of fraud. [82005]

I receive letters about serious fraud cases, and the Attorney-General and I regularly meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office, Ros Wright. I have not met small firms' representatives specifically to discuss fraud, but I am well aware that it is a problem not only for big companies and rich individuals but for small business and people on low incomes. The work that the CPS and the SFO do on fraud is very important.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that, in their response to the Criminal Justice Bill, the General Council of the Bar and the Criminal Bar Association of England have said:

"We oppose the suggestion of trial by judge alone in cases of suspected jury interference and fraud cases."?

I am aware of the views of the Bar Council on all aspects of the Criminal Justice Bill. We take its views extremely seriously. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Bill emanates from the Home Office. There will be a Second Reading and a full debate next week. I suggest that she raises those issues with the Home Secretary, and in the House next week.

Is the Solicitor-General aware that small firms often suffer disproportionately from fraud? There have been many scams recently, including the Nigerian e-mail scams, the UBR reduction offer scam and the grant application offer scam. Such scams sap morale among small firms, and divert attention from the creation of wealth and jobs. Is the right hon. and learned Lady going to make an effort to tackle the problem and streamline the prosecution of fraud process?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is right to say that fraud is not a victimless, technical offence. It can cause redundancies, real hardship and the loss of homes and businesses. As far as we can tell, it costs the economy about £14 billion a year. We work closely on this matter with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and the Treasury. We need a cross-Government approach, and sufficient resources to investigate and prosecute fraud. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter today.