Whether the access regulator will set targets for university admission for (a) pupils from state schools and (b) pupils from working class back grounds. [102699]

No.

Does the Secretary of State not acknowledge that loose and careless talk by Ministers about targets, quotas and benchmarks has caused a large number of pupils, and their parents and schools, considerable anxiety about the integrity of the university admissions system? Will he confirm that the access regulator will not approve schemes based on postcodes, parental occupation, accents or schools, but will concentrate on the academic merit of individual applicants?

We will publish our proposals for the access regulator, which will go through the various points raised in detail, in the next two or three weeks. I can confirm that access will be based on merit—and I reconfirm that it is not careless talk from the Government that has caused this issue to be raised; it is a series of misstatements and wrong views, attributed particularly to Bristol university but also to other universities, that wrongly describe the current admissions practice of that university. Much of the discussion about this issue is wrongly informed and fundamentally incorrect.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to stand up to this wicked little campaign by the Daily Mail and others in the popular press—and, indeed, by the Liberal Democrats? The facts surely are that the Bristol innovation is aimed at finding the true potential of students to benefit from higher education. Schools that gloss pupils up to get three A-levels cannot expect that to be the only criterion on which potential is judged.

My hon. Friend is correct in every respect. Bristol university is an excellent university, as are many others. There is substantial over-application for places, so it has to decide the best way to choose whether to accept the people who come through. It has rightly decided to consider the merit of the applicants and their potential to benefit. A great deal of academic research indicates that in certain circumstances, the capacity to benefit from university education is greater in people who come by non-traditional routes. I was at a conference of universities and others in Newcastle on Tuesday, and other universities expressed their own commitment to precisely the approach that my hon. Friend has described.

One of my oldest friends from university—I went to Cambridge—came from one of the roughest working class areas of Salford. How does the Secretary of State think his children should be categorised if the access regulator considers the background of an applicant?

Fundamentally, those children should be categorised on the basis of their merit, achievement and talent. That is how it should be done, and that is how it will be done. As I said to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the detail of the assessments to be taken into account is the subject of a paper that we will publish in the next two or three weeks.

Nevertheless, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the access regulator is trying to increase the number of students from lower-income backgrounds who go to university. Many universities, especially those that I represent, are anxious to know what performance measures will be used. Can my right hon. Friend give us an indication?

I am sorry that I cannot do so today, for the reason I gave earlier: I will publish a paper on this subject in the next two or three weeks. In paying tribute to my hon. Friend's work to increase access to the university that she represents, I can tell her that many colleges of Cambridge university, and other universities, are working hard to achieve what she describes. The ambition of our proposals is to ensure that the good work done by some colleges and universities is done by all.

If he will make a statement on his guidance to universities on their admissions criteria. [102700]

If he will make a statement on the number of 18 year olds going on to higher education in each of the last three years. [102703]

Admissions are the responsibility of individual universities. They should select applicants by merit, based on their potential to succeed. We encourage universities to use a wide range of measures to assess that potential.

I welcome the Minister's comments and the observations made by the Secretary of State a moment ago. Nevertheless, it is clear that however accurate or inaccurate reports about Bristol university have been, young people are deeply troubled and confused about exactly how their applications for admission to university will be determined under the Government's new approach to higher education. Even though it may be the universities' responsibility, would the Minister please think about issuing some clear guidance to young people about precisely how their applications will be determined? Otherwise, they will be in a state of complete confusion.

As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not up to the Government to determine the admission arrangements for individual universities. It would be inappropriate for us to issue guidance. I hope that he will join me in ensuring that the misunderstandings that have been spread, not least by some members of his party, can be put to rest. Applicants should know that their applications will be judged on their merit and their potential to succeed at university.

What proportion of university applicants and those applying to university for the first time this year are aged 18? What are the Government doing to increase the proportion of those over 30 who enter university, and also to increase the proportion of people entering both full and part-time education, to enable her Department to meet its targets?

I do not have the figures for the proportion of university entrants who are 18, but I will write to the hon. Lady.

Does the Minister not think it incongruous that Bristol university is being accused of bias against the independent sector, when 39 per cent. of its students come from independent schools?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who represents the interests of all her constituents, and of Bristol university, admirably. I understand that 40 per cent. of entrants to Bristol university come from private schools, and in those circumstances it strikes me as difficult to accuse Bristol of positive discrimination against students from such schools.

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the fact that not only at Bristol but at some other universities the proportion of young people from public schools is far in excess of the proportion of the population that they represent? Will she arrange for the access regulator to examine the admissions system, to ensure that while there is no bias against students with such a background, there is no bias in favour of them either?

The aim of the Government's policy is to ensure that all young people with talent and potential have an opportunity to realise their potential at university, whatever their background. The Government have a role to play in raising standards in schools and raising aspirations. We want universities to play their part and reach into communities to help us raise those standards and aspirations, selecting students on the basis of merit and potential.

I am delighted to hear the Minister say that aptitude and potential should be the basis on which university students are selected. That is what my party has been saying. But given that A-levels are clearly not a particularly good guide to the degree class that students will obtain, can the Minister give some idea of the criteria that should be used to measure aptitude and potential? She rightly says that they should not be set by the Government, but it would be useful to have at least an idea of what they are.

I have been saying for a longtime that talent, potential and merit should enable people to gain university places and to succeed. As we have said, attainment at A-level must be one criterion in the assessment of who can succeed and who has the potential to excel, but it must not be the only criterion. It is not for us to prescribe the criteria that universities should employ; but Bristol is doing what Oxford and Cambridge, Nottingham, Leeds, Manchester and a number of other universities are doing in the case of a range of school leavers, and that is welcome. We will certainly keep those criteria under review.

If we want to widen participation in higher education, we have a real chance of doing so if we improve standards in some of our schools. More young people from all backgrounds will then be able to go to university. Should we not encourage those schools, and also encourage universities to support them, as Nottingham Trent already does?

I entirely agree with those sensible comments. Nine out of 10 young people with two or more A-levels currently enter university. If we want to change the composition of those who enjoy the benefits of a university education, we must work extremely hard to raise standards, achievements and aspirations in all our schools.

It is extraordinary that the Minister and the Secretary of State do not recognise how widespread the anger about the Government's policy on university admissions is. Even Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality—someone as new Labour as it is humanly possible to be—has said:

"The … consequence of a crude admissions policy will be simply to shut out large numbers of"

"for their commitment to education."

Both the Secretary of State and I have received enormous support for our attempts to ensure that everyone who has the potential to succeed at university gets the opportunity to do so, whatever their background. It is a fact that far too many people from minority ethnic communities do not have that opportunity to develop their full potential. That is why our policies in schools, our policies to raise aspirations and our desire to have fair and open admission policies in universities will ensure equal opportunity for all.

The hon. Lady talks about the welcome the policy has received, but last week she had to be slapped down by the Secretary of State when she let the cat out of the bag and said, with characteristic honesty, that the Government did intend to introduce targets for university admission from different social groups. Will she make up for that by announcing today that she is dropping the financial pressure that she puts on universities to meet the Government targets, and instead use that money better to encourage aspiration and excellence in secondary schools, which is the fair way to ensure that the right applicants get to university, whatever their social background?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I completely agree on both the aims and the mechanisms that we are adopting to ensure that there is fair access for every individual in our community to develop their full potential, so that it is potential and merit, not class and background, that determine who gets a place at university. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to ensure equality of opportunity, he should be questioning the tax cuts that his party wishes to institute, which will lead to a lowering of standards and opportunity for all in our schools.

If he will make a statement on his policy on science research funding in universities. [102701]

The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging the highest quality research to ensure that we continue to compete internationally. We have recently announced the most generous research settlement for many years, with expenditure on science and research increasing by £1.25 billion a year by 2005–06 compared with 2002–03—an increase of around 30 per cent. in real terms.

I congratulate the Government on their generosity to the university of York in capital funding. The university has responded, with biological scientists there winning more research funding per capita than any other university in the country, and gaining the highest scoring in research evaluation exercises—but York loses out on revenue funding because it is a relatively small university. Will the Minister look at that problem to ensure that universities are rewarded according to the quality of their research output, not just the quantity?

Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate the university of York on the high quality of its research and on its success in the recent research assessment exercise—but I do not recognise his figures. The figures that I have suggest that the university's research grant has gone up by £2,136,000 to £16,680,000 for 2003–04. I will,however, re—examine the moneys that have been received by the university from the Higher Education Funding Council to assure myself that the allocation is fair and just. I completely take the point that quality, not size of unit, has to be a factor in determining the allocation of research funding.

Is the Minister not alarmed that universities appear to be equally concerned about the policy for science, as set out in the White Paper, and issues concerning access? How does she propose to resolve the practical problems surrounding recruitment to research if the base is to become smaller and more intensive, and the practical problems of collaboration in science, which badly affect university teams that may be currently small, but are excellent?

The allocation of research funding for HEFCE this year is the beginning of a move towards ensuring that we can support properly the most excellent and world-competitive research that is essential to the development of products and services. We are talking to HEFCE about how we put into place financial levers and incentives to encourage collaboration, not just across departments—to get interdisciplinary research working—but across universities so that where there is a small but excellent research capacity, it can be encouraged to work with other equally excellent research capacities in other universities.

A study reported in The Guardian today suggests that low pay among academics is a major cause of weakness in our science research base. Will the funding allocated by the Government directly address the problems of low pay?

We have given the most generous settlement to higher education in my living memory, with a real-terms increase of 6 per cent. in funding each year for the next three years. One of the reasons for the generosity of the settlement is that we recognize the issue of the pay of academics. If we are to recruit and retain the best academics in British universities, we must address pay, and we have put the resources in place to enable universities to start to do that.

What assessment he has made of the impact on school budgets of the local government settlement2003–04. [102702]

The great majority of local education authorities have set budgets that will pass on to schools the substantial increase in funding that we made available in the 2003–04 settlement. Essex is among those who have said that they will not be passing on the full increase to their schools.

That is an outrageously complacent response, even from this Minister. Does not he know that the settlement leaves Essex schools with a funding gap of £7.5 million? How should schools accommodate that disastrous shortfall? For instance, should they employ more classroom assistants instead of teachers?

The hon. Gentleman should calm down. The Secretary of State has said that we expect Essex to passport the full amount in future years, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join the Gcvernment in urging Essex county council to do precisely that. I recognise that there are difficulties in some authorities and some schools, and we are receiving representations from them, including from some in Essex. But I should point out that since 1997 there has been a 37 per cent. increase in the money going to schools in Essex, and a trebling in the direct grants that go to schools in Essex through the school standards grant.

Would my hon. Friend be interested in the outcome of a meeting of the F40 authorities in Stafford last week? It is fair to say that LEAs are still digesting the effect of the new formula on their finances, and are wrestling with a number of factors that have nothing to do with a change in the system—for example, falling pupil numbers, the new national insurance contributions and the extra contribution to the teachers superannuation scheme. However, of those 40 authorities, four left the campaign before the end and 11 have left the bottom 40 positions because of the change in the formula. The authorities have, responsibly, arranged a conference for the autumn, on 11 October, to take a dispassionate look at where we go next. I hope that a member of the Government will be able to support the conference at that time.

I am happy to agree to do that: I, or one of my colleagues, will attend that event. Inominate—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State, of course, does the nominating. He also allocates the questions, and I am delighted to be answering this one.

Does the Minister recall that when his Department last intervened in Croydon's education budget, that intervention was described by the Labour-controlled council as presumptuous, damaging and unnecessary? Does he agree that it is becoming apparent, however, that that intervention was not presumptuous, but very necessary? He will have seen reports in The Independent that Croydon's schools are threatened with a four—day week, and he will be aware of the crumbling schools and the cuts in respect of special educational needs. I urge him not to back off in a cowardly way, as he did last time, but to intervene, and to do so quickly.

We have indeed intervened in Croydon. I am delighted to say that as a consequence of my right hon. Friend's intervention, the amount of money going into schools in Croydon is significantly more than was originally proposed by the local authority. We want to ensure that the money that we say should be allocated to schools in Croydon actually reaches them, so that they can continue their excellent work to improve education standards.

Parents, teachers and governors in Leicestershire are reasonable people. They were not expecting miracles from the new funding system—just a fairer share of the increased resources that our Government have given to education. Yet their authority is 150th out of the 150 local education authorities. Does the Minister believe that Leicestershire's position is merited by its mix of people and by the results that it is obtaining? Is it fair that schools in Greater Leicester but outside the city boundary, which receive 4,000 city children, are funded for those children at the county rate, rather than at the much higher city rate that they would otherwise have enjoyed?

I am tempted to say that I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will give a little later to a question specifically about Leicestershire. However, I am aware of the issues in Leicestershire, and I have met head teachers there as part of a series of conferences for primary head teachers this term. Through the new formula, we have sought to ensure that pupils in identical circumstances in any part of the country are treated identically. That is what we have tried to bring about through the settlement, although it is clear that some authorities have gained more from it than others.

The Minister will be aware that many local authorities are dealing with their budget problems by closing special schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may say no, but special schools are being closed all over the country, and more and more such proposals are being made every day. Do the Government not see that this way of dealing with budgets and education policy is potentially damaging to some of the most vulnerable children—the ones who need more care, not less? I am sure that the Minister appreciates that this issue is very important to families with children with special needs. Will he undertake to impose a moratorium on the closure of special schools, pending an investigation into this cruel policy?

I am certainly aware that many authorities are looking at the nature of their provision for children with special educational needs. In some cases—but only in some cases—that may result in decisions to close special schools. Such decisions must be rooted in educational evidence and educational good practice, and I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that they are driven by a desire to save money, or are a consequence of the local government settlement. We want to ensure that there is inclusive education, and I am happy to give the assurance that special schools continue to have a role in that regard. However, circumstances will vary between local communities, and rather than imposing a moratorium centrally from Whitehall, we should let local communities decide, provided that they make those decisions in full consultation with parents and others concerned in their local communities.

What steps he is taking to improve school buildings. [102704]

Since 1997 almost £10 billion has been made available to meet priority building needs in schools. The Government have recently set themselves the aim of ensuring that secondary education facilities in every part of England are rebuilt and renewed to 21st century standards, while we continue to improve the quality of provision in primary schools. My written statement to the House on 26 February outlined a new approach to achieve that goal, starting with £5.1 billion available in 2005–06. We are now consulting widely on those proposals.

I thank the Minister for his informative answer. Will he lend his support to the Paulsgrove and Wymering learning community project, which has replaced five elderly schools with one new multi-million-pound state-of-the-art facility that will enable the whole community to benefit from education, not just the children at school?

I think that I am right in saying that I met some of the parents, teachers and pupils from the Paulsgrove area when they came to the Jubilee Room to make a fascinating presentation about their education project. I am extremely tempted to make a friend of my hon. Friend by promising my support for his application to the private finance initiative round currently under way—but I fear that if I do, I will also make a large number of enemies. However, I promise that the application from Paulsgrove and Wymering will be taken seriously, as will all the applications for the current round of PFI funding.

I acknowledge the fact that schools' capital funding is better now than it was during the deplorable previous 20 years. However, there is a still a huge backlog of work; across the country there are more than 20,000 temporary classrooms which should be replaced. When will we see a scale of funding that acknowledges that problem and establishes an organised replacement programme for temporary classrooms throughout the education system?

The hon. Gentleman was on firm ground with the first half of his question, and I agree that there have been major steps forward. He should know that this year about £3 billion is being allocated to capital improvement, but by 2005–06 it will be £5.1 billion, which is a major improvement by any measure. He is of course right that too many schools are in need of major investment—an investment to which we are committed. The plans that we announced a couple of weeks ago set out a bold vision for education investment on the capital side, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will see the benefits in his constituency, as we all will all over the country.

One of the most remarkable achievements of the past five years is the way in which primary school results in coalfield communities have been catching up with those in the rest of the country for the first time ever. On the allocation of resources, so that we can finish the job in secondary schools, will the Government take due notice of the fact that we have an over-representation of clapped-out buildings? Give us the buildings and tools, and we will finish the job at secondary level.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to education and social renewal in coalfield areas. I think that I am right in saying that we may discuss the issue later this Question Time, and I look forward to that. I can assure my hon. Friend that his commitment is recognised and that the bids that are in at the moment will be taken seriously.

How can schools in West Sussex continue to maintain their school buildings when, as a result of the second lowest increase in central Government funding and a 22 per cent. reduction in the school standards fund, they face a cut in funding of between £40 and£55 per pupil? Is it the Government's policy that West Sussex should be socially excluded from the Prime Minister's commitment to education?

It is very unwise of the hon. Gentleman to start talking about cuts in education when his own Front-Bench spokesman on Treasury affairs has committed his party to a 20 per cent. cut in Government funding for public services. He is unwise to venture into that area. I urge him to be extremely cautious about bandying around figures for cuts when every authority in the country was guaranteed an increase of at least 3.2 per cent. per pupil in the education funding settlement announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions in December.

My hon. Friend is on record as saying that if children are to attain the best possible educational standards they need to be taught in modern school buildings. The children in my constituency are being taught in some of the worst buildings in the country, and teachers are working hard to try to improve standards. When will my hon. Friend attend to the appeal made on behalf of the local education authority, governors and teachers, and myself as MP for Normanton, to ensure that we get the buildings that children are entitled to if they are to receive the best possible education?

My hon. Friend has been pressing the case for Normanton schools with real passion. Previously, he has put a similar question to my hon. Friend the junior Minister—[Laughter.] I mean my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who was doing such an able job earlier in allocating responsibilities. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the commitment that he seeks for his constituency is shared by the Government. We hope to come forward with our response in the not—too—distant future.

If he will make a statement on current and projected levels of student debt. [102705]

The average publicly owned debt of a borrower with a new income-contingent loan, entering repayment in April 2003, is estimated to be £7,240. Information on students' private-sector debt, such as overdrafts and other commercial loans, is not available centrally. The student income and expenditure survey 2002–03 will collect information on younger full-time students' current debt and expected debt on graduation.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that high levels of debt form a real deterrent to disadvantaged and low-income groups, such as the ethnic minorities, single parents and women? What assessment has been made of the impact of that debt on those groups?

I am aware that debt can act as a disincentive in precisely the way that the hon. Lady has suggested. A number of research projects, including some commissioned by my Department, illustrate the points that she makes. However, in connection with the higher education White Paper, it is important to set the debt issue against the fact that we intend to allow students to defer the up-front fee of £1,100, which at present they have to pay. We also intend to raise the repayment threshold to ਓ15,000—to make repayment through the tax system more affordable—to maintain the fee-remission scheme for students, and to reintroduce grants of up to £1,000, so that students from lower—income backgrounds have more money to live on. Also, any debt incurred will of course be based on a zero real rate of interest, not the sort of rate involved in using a Barclaycard, or in a car loan or mortgage.

Many adults who enter university education have to give up jobs to do so. When they return to the labour market, they may not find jobs that are better paid than what they gave up, but they decide to go to university not to enhance their financial status but because their interests in education change, and they want to move into other things. Will not those people be deterred from making such a decision if they think that they will be left with debts that they might not be able to handle?

I accept that mature students enter university and higher education for a variety of motives that are different from those of people who go straight from school. That is one reason why the proposed £1,000 grant will go directly to independent students of the type described by my hon. Friend. It is also important to note that any debt repayment is entirely income contingent, with a £15,000 basic level. If the individuals concerned earn less than that when they go back to work, they have to pay nothing. If they earn, say, £20,000 a year, they will have to pay something of the order of £38 a month. As I said to the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), I acknowledge that this is a legitimate issue, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we are trying to take steps to deal with it.

The Secretary of State has just mentioned the welcome reintroduction, proposed in the White Paper, of maintenance grants worth £1,000. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Welsh National Assembly has already introduced Assembly learning grants of £1,500. What discussions is he having with the National Assembly to secure a transfer of responsibilities and funding in connection with student funding, to ensure that students in Wales are better off as a result of the White Paper, and not worse off?

We are discussing, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the Wales Office and the Welsh Executive, precisely those questions. However, detailed work is being done to assess the financial implications of the sort of change that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will be some time before we can come to a firm view on this and make the proper assessment. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when we have come to that view we will publish the information so that people can see clearly the basis of any judgment that we finally make.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government are impaled on a hook of their own making on the issue of student debt? Will he now drop his target of 50 percent. going to university—a figure rejected by most institutions, parents and students—which would be responsible for pushing up the cost of higher education by so much? Does he not understand that most young people want to go to university where they meet the academic requirements and do not want to be saddled with massive debts for years afterwards or to have their admissions decided by a regulator who attaches more importance to their parents' income and education than to their own academic achievements?

The last point is total nonsense. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the proposals to widen access to 50 per cent. of the population are not generally welcomed. They have been widely welcomed both by the higher education sector itself and by all those concerned with the future of the economy. That is for the very good reason that in future the competitiveness of the economy will depend on high-level qualifications, and jobs will be for people with such qualifications, rather than for people who leave school at 16. That is why we focus on that. I know that the Opposition want to shrink university education and go back to the days when between 6 and 8 per cent. of the population went to university, but that simply shows how out of time they are.

On what basis he calculates the national education formula spending share for (a) a child educated in Braunstone estate, Leicester and (b) a child educated in the town of Braunstone, Leicestershire on the other side of Braunstone lane. [102706]

The calculation of funding for children in Leicester City and Leicestershire is done on the same basis. All comparable pupils attract the same level of funding from central Government. There is a basic entitlement for all children and extra funding for deprivation and additional costs.

That does not answer the question. I should be grateful for an answer and I hope that the Minister will not witter on Goebelsesque about the fact that we believe that administrative costs in education and elsewhere could be cut by as much as 20 per cent. In the city of Leicester a child receives £3,476 in Government funding whereas a child educated in Leicestershire, such as at Winstanley high school or Kingsway primary school, just across the Braunstone lane and not half a mile away, receives only£2,932. Some 4,100 children cross the border of Braunstone lane to get a better education in Leicester. Will the Minister please explain this unfair discrepancy of £543 to parents, teachers and governors in Leicestershire who are as appalled and angered as I am by a 1 per cent. cut in real terms in education funding? Will he give a less complacent answer?

Order. That is enough for the Minister to go on with.

The hon. Gentleman should take some pills and sit in a dark room, to coin an old phrase. Let me give him the facts. Funding in Leicester city per pupil of £3,204 is higher than in Leicestershire, which on average is £2,835, mainly because 29 per cent. of pupils in Leicester city are on income support and in Leicestershire the figure is 9 per cent. Furthermore, the increases in spending over the past five years are instructive and the House will want to know them. Since 1997–98 in Leicestershire there has been a 36 per cent. increase in funding, worth £72million, and in Leicester city a 25 per cent. increase, worth £30 million. If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the pupils who are living in Braunstone village or town, he should address a question to his local authority and ask how it is reflecting different needs across Leicestershire in the application of its funding formula that distributes money around the county.

If he will make a statement on the advice issued by his Department on the teaching of sex education in schools. [102707]

In July 2000 we provided sex and relationship education guidance to maintained schools. The guidance places the responsibility of determining a sex and relationship education policy firmly on head teachers and school governing bodies. Schools should develop their policies and programmes in consultation with parents.

The Minister will be aware that teenage pregnancy rates in Britain are four times higher than in the Netherlands, where Dutch parents and school governors have more control over what is taught in schools and where family links are stronger. Bearing in mind our high teenage pregnancy rates and the even higher rates of sexually transmitted disease, which is almost at epidemic proportions in certain parts of the country, will the Minister follow and promote the example in the Netherlands which advocates sexual abstinence among the young and strengthens the role of parents and governors in these matters?

The hon. Lady will know that our guidance indeed strengthens the role of parents and governors. She is correct to identify the high rates of teenage pregnancy and of sexually transmitted infections as a major cause for concern. That is an important part of the reason for providing our sex and relationship education guidance. I am sure that she will join me in welcoming the fact that the most recent figures show that teenage pregnancy rates have fallen again. Teenage conception rates have fallen for three years in a row and are now 9 per cent. lower than in 1998. I am not complacent about that, but the figures show that the existing programmes are having some impact.

Is it not the case that, since the social exclusion unit's ground-breaking report on teenage pregnancy, this country has for the first time woken up to the fact that we have one of the highest levels in the world? In the 1970s, our teenage pregnancy rates were about the same as those in the rest of Europe but in the '80s and '90s they went up in the UK while they were going down throughout Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that educational underachievement and teenage pregnancy go hand in hand? Will he ensure that his Department carries on relentlessly with its programmes and strategies on teenage pregnancy so that the rates continue to fall and that young people understand the consequences of sexual relationships? We must put an end to cases such as those reported by the social exclusion unit in which young people believe that by drinking vinegar they will not get pregnant.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the powerful way in which he set out his case, which demonstrates the importance of Departments working together and with local agencies, including schools. Enabling young people to make responsible and well-informed decisions is at the heart of our sex and relationship education policy. The statistics on teenage pregnancy suggest that we are having some success but clearly we still have a long way to go.

Does the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was absolutely right to describe the sex and relationship education guidance issued in July 2000 as excellent, balanced and reasonable? Will he confirm that that is a far better basis for providing information and developing understanding among children than the offensive, redundant and irrelevant section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 which, the other night, the House once again wisely voted to repeal?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and associate myself entirely with his remarks. I am delighted that we received firm cross-party support in the vote on Monday night, with a significant number of Opposition Members joining Labour and Liberal Democrat Members and Members from other parties in the Lobby. I very much hope that the other place will take notice of that strong cross-party support for repeal of section 28.

Does my hon. Friend agree that schools can be usefully supported in their work on sex education by other services, such as those provided at Rowlinson youth club in my constituency where there is a drop-in clinic for young people who can discuss with health professionals, in a non-judgmental way, their concerns about personal relationships?

Absolutely. I agree entirely. There are a number of such opportunities, where the school, as the hub of the local community, can work with other services to ensure that young people receive all the advice, guidance and education that they need.

Much as the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) would like to turn the clock back to the days when we could only have sexual intercourse after permission from a priest or the local registrar, and while I congratulate the Minister on the welcome decrease in the number of teenage pregnancies, does he agree that sex education is part of general education? It is the same as history or politics and, in many cases, a good deal more useful. Will he pledge to the House that he will try to ensure that all children in this country, regardless of which school they attend and the flavour of its governing body, receive proper sex education?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I very much agree with her. She was a little unfair on the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton), who, somewhat to my surprise, felt that we had lessons to learn from Holland in these matters. I am happy to look at the figures, because we can always learn lessons in ensuring that sex and relationships education is as effective as possible. We can provide the framework, but such decisions are best made at school level, involving governing bodies. A testament to the success of these programmes is not only the figures on teenage pregnancies that I gave earlier, but the fact that although parents have the right to withdraw their children from sex and relationships education, fewer than 1 per cent. do so. That demonstrates that we are having an impact, but the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) is right that we need to do more.

If she will make a statement on specialist domestic violence prosecutors within the Crown Prosecution Service. [102719]

Each of the 42 areas of the Crown Prosecution Service has a specialist lead prosecutor on domestic violence. About 13,000 cases of domestic violence are dealt with by prosecutors each year, mostly in the magistrates court, with the most serious cases going to the Crown court. The CPS is doing important and very difficult work to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and victims are protected. I strongly support its commitment and professionalism and commend it to the House.

Although I welcome both the fact that domestic violence is increasingly being reported and the success that the CPS is having, we still need to recognise that it represents a quarter of all violent crime. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in commending the work of the standing conference of women's organisations on the Wirral and Deeside, which has proactively and effectively tackled the problem? Will she also agree that the message that we need to get out loud and clear is that domestic violence is a serious crime and that it is not merely a matter for the privacy of the individuals concerned? That is true whether it be in relation to domestic violence against women, as it generally is, against men, or in mixed homes or single sex homes.

I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. Domestic violence is not a private matter that goes on behind closed doors and is for the family to deal with—it has to be a public policy issue that is treated as seriously as an assault on a stranger in the street. I join him in his commendation for the Wirral and Deeside forum, with which the Crown Prosecution Service is fully involved. I emphasise to the House that our determination to tackle crimes of violence means that we must tackle domestic violence, because, as my hon. Friend says, it represents a quarter of all violent crime.

I hope that the Solicitor-General can assure the House that no domestic violence prosecutors and no members of the Crown Prosecution Service sell information to the media. What are her Department's policies in relation to briefing the media? She will be aware of the difficult balance to be struck between freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial. The Attorney-General is drawing up new guidelines on that. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that her Department will consult widely before any precipitate new guidelines are drawn up?

The important point that the hon. Gentleman raises involves four issues: first, as he said, the freedom of the press; secondly, as he said, the right to a fair trial; thirdly, the privacy of the individual; and, fourthly, the confidentiality of police investigations. In addition to the guidance that the Attorney-General is drawing up, on which he will consult—I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a copy of the draft guidance and offer to place it in the Library so that other hon. Members, including Conservative Front Benchers, can see it—the Lord Chancellor's Department is reviewing certain aspects of the matter, particularly payments to witnesses, and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is considering the issues. We must recognise that when things go wrong it leads not only to the financial cost of lost trials, but to a terrible human cost to the people involved.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lord Chancellor's Department is organising a series of conferences on domestic violence in the Asian community? Conferences have already been held in Bolton and Brentford and another will be held in Bradford on 3 June. They are not being held because of a particular problem in that community, but because the subject is taboo and often skirted round. The hope is to encourage an open debate within the community. Someone from the Crown Prosecution Service will attend the Bradford conference, and it may be useful for a special prosecutor to be there to explain their position.

I will ensure that that happens and that the CPS joins that important gathering in my hon. Friend's constituency. I will respond to her point about the Lord Chancellor's Department by simply commending to the House the work that is being done by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).

What her policy is on prosecuting drivers with numerous previous convictions for motoring offences. [102720]

The Crown Prosecution Service reviews each case on its merits, applying the tests of evidence and public interest that are set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. If sufficient evidence exists for there to be a realistic prospect of a conviction, a prosecution will proceed if it is in the public interest. A history of numerous convictions will provide the basis for the belief that the offence is likely to be repeated. It will also be a public interest factor tending in favour of prosecution.

Does the Solicitor-General share the concern of many of our constituents that someone who has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, and who has several previous driving bans—I understand that in this instance there are more than 80 previous convictions—can be sentenced for up to only 10 years? If she does, what does she propose to do?

Sentencing in this area is considered carefully by the courts. When death has been caused by dangerous or careless driving, it is important that the sentence reflect the gravity of the effect of the crime on the victim's family. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Sentencing Advisory Panel has recently produced new guidance for use when death is caused by dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal will consider its response to that report on 31 March, when four cases will come for sentence. The Court of Appeal will consider what the tariff should be.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the concept of a "motoring" offence is rather strange? Often, a motor car is used as a weapon or is used to carry out various outrageous forms of antisocial behaviour. The concept of a motoring offence should be placed in a wider context, and policing should be organised in a way that ensures that the civil part of the offence is given due weight.

Those points are well made. A good partnership between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is important when tackling such offences. It is well recognised that offences that are labelled as "antisocial behaviour" or simply "motoring" can have devastating consequences, including loss of life or serious injury.

Does the Solicitor—General acknowledge that many of the most serious motoring offences are committed by drivers who are under the influence of drugs or a cocktail of drink and drugs? Will she join her ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Department for Transport, who have undertaken to consider our proposals—which I put forward yesterday and which my noble Friend Lord Dixon-Smith is putting forward today in the other place—for new offences against drug drivers? Will she ask her noble and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider this matter in the hope that the Government will accept our proposals?

I will ask the Attorney—General to look at the hon. Gentleman's proposals, and I will also ask the Crown Prosecution Service about any difficulties that it has in relation to prosecuting drivers who commit offences while driving under the influence of drugs. The danger of drink driving has become much better recognised, as has the importance of effective prosecutions, but such prosecutions are more difficult with drugs. However, I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's proposals seriously and respond to them.

If she will make a statement on her policy in respect of prosecutions for animal cruelty. [102721]

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals undertakes most prosecutions for animal cruelty. It has long-established expertise in both the investigation and prosecution of cases involving animal welfare.

Is the Minister aware that, since 1997, there has been a decrease in proceedings for animal cruelty offences, a decrease in the number of convictions and a decrease in the percentage of those convicted, despite the fact that not all animal cruelty offences are even notifiable? Is that not very worrying, given the strong feelings among all our constituents throughout the country? What is the Minister doing to improve the situation?

I am not able to say whether or not the situation is worrying, I am afraid. I will have to look into that and get back to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether there is less cruelty or less investigation going on, but I can certainly say, from the Crown Prosecution Service's point of view, that if there is evidence of a criminal offence and it is in the public interest to prosecute, it will do so.