What progress has been made in areas of traditionally low higher education take-up in improving that position over the last six years. [121694]

What proportion of students entered higher education from social classes D and E in autumn (a) 2002 and (b) 1997. [121695]

The proportion of young people from low-skill families entering higher education is about the same now as it was in 1997–18 per cent. for social class D, and 15 per cent. for social class E—which is why we have introduced the aimhigher campaign. The gap between progression rates into higher education from aimhigher areas and the rest is closing. Latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service suggest that this trend is likely to continue. Applications for 2003 university entry are up 2.6 per cent. in aimhigher areas, compared with 0.3 per cent. elsewhere.

My right hon. Friend will know that in Burnley there is a low take-up of higher education. The town's future prosperity depends on more people going on to higher education and, when they have done so, returning to work in suitable employment in the area. Will the Government continue to do all that they can to encourage more people to take up higher education and monitor that to see exactly how they are succeeding? That is important to the future of education, not only in Burnley, but in many other places.

My hon. Friend is correct. When I visited Burnley recently, I discussed with him and colleagues the way in which we could address those questions. I pay tribute to the work that he and his friends and colleagues are doing to raise education standards throughout the town, as that is the way forward, provided that we can get the link between universities, nationally and regionally, and Burnley to encourage people to believe that a university education is a realistic proposition.

Bolton institute in my constituency tops the league on access to higher education, with 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of its students coming from the very backgrounds that we are discussing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a cost both for attaining and maintaining that position? Furthermore, there is an added cost for keeping those students in higher education, given their higher than average social and financial problems, to prevent them from dropping out.

I pay tribute to the work of Bolton institute. There is a welcome for many of our proposals in the White Paper on the importance of recognising the work of such organisations. My hon. Friend is right that there are additional cost factors, which are already reflected to some extent in the Higher Education Funding Council funding streams, but that is one of the matters that we need to return to and examine carefully.

The Secretary of State will be aware that in the 25 weakest universities there is an average drop-out rate of one in four. Those students are not getting any qualifications at all, despite having started a course. In light of that rather depressing fact, will the right hon. Gentleman consider dropping his wholly unrealistic target of getting 50 per cent. of all 18-year-olds into higher education?

With respect, we had a full debate on the matter yesterday, instigated by the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench. Not many Conservative Members were present, and I know that he could not be there. One of the issues that we discussed was the fact that the drop-out rate has remained roughly constant since 1997. However, we are committed to a 50 per cent. participation rate because we believe that the future economic and social strength of this country is dependent on a highly educated, highly trained population, and that is what we need to achieve.

Does the Secretary of State maintain the position that he took on 9 January, when he said that

"the difference between the chances of access to higher education of the higher and lower social classes is a public disgrace."—[Official Report, 9 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 300.]

I have had correspondence on this matter with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who made a number of mistakes in a letter that he wrote publicly. I had to correct them, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman has still not replied. However, in the White Paper—we will legislate on the basis of its proposals, which were debated fully in the Opposition day debate earlier this week in which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke—we addressed the matter very fully indeed. Those proposals will increase access rather than reduce it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that economic prosperity, social well-being and quality of life are vastly enhanced for people who study to a higher level? For people in my constituency, the two great determinants of getting into higher education are aspirations at the age of 11 and access to further education through FE colleges. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the response to the White Paper, those two points are given great prominence? Although debt is an issue, will he take it from me, as the first person in my family to go into higher education, that aspiration at the age of 11 is the single most important factor?

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. She puts her point extremely clearly and I can give her the assurances that she seeks. A proposal to scrap fees completely, as has been suggested by the Opposition, would lead to a situation where about 50 people in every sixth form in the country would not be able to go on to higher education, so in my hon. Friend's schools in Rochdale, if the Opposition came into government, the opportunity and the aspiration would be removed.

On Monday the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education rightly said that the surest way to widen participation was to improve results in schools. The Department's own figures show that in areas with grammar schools, 32.1 per cent. of children achieve A or B grades at GCSE, compared with 23.1 per cent. in comprehensive areas. Is not the Secretary of State worried that by attacking the remaining grammar schools, the Government will take opportunities away from the brightest children from ordinary families and thereby make participation worse, not better?

The hon. Gentleman's presumption is wrong. We are not attacking particular groups of schools and will not do so. The issue of education standards should be carefully examined when considering the best system of education in any locality. Is the hon. Gentleman saying, on behalf of his party, that the Conservatives would bring back the 11-plus in every part of the country? Is that what he believes should happen? When will they publicise it? Will they have the confidence to put that policy to the country?

I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about the aimhigher campaign. I recently had the privilege of sitting in on the aimhigher roadshow at Stuart Bathurst school in my constituency and found it extremely impressive. Can he assure me that that way of communicating to schools will be rolled out throughout the country to all schools with the clientele that would benefit from it?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There has been a great deal of positive experience from the aimhigher programme in various parts of the country. When respected community leaders such as my hon. Friend give it their personal endorsement, that adds to the effectiveness of the programme. I congratulate him on doing that and hope that other colleagues in all parts of the House would consider doing so too.

What recent discussions he has had with local education authorities in the south of England about funding of schools; and if he will make a statement. [121696]

Both my right hon. Friend and I have had meetings with a number of representatives from local education authorities in southern England. Officials have held meetings with LEAs to help them if they face difficulties.

No matter how many meetings the Minister has, nothing can disguise the crisis facing our schools, particularly in Buckinghamshire, where between 50 and 60 schools will be running deficit budgets this year. With teachers' pension contributions, the withdrawal of many standards fund grants, the impact of the work force agreement and national insurance increases, the costs are outstripping income. The Government are wrecking the education system and demoralising head teachers, governors, parents and pupils. Instead of Ministers behaving like political sheep and bleating out the mantra that there is more money in all our systems, why do they not take some real action and save our schools?

The House will be interested to know that the Government have taken £80 million of real action by adding that to the Buckinghamshire total for education spending over the past six years. The hon. Lady can talk as much as she likes about costs in the system. When there are more teachers who are better paid and better supported, we on the Labour Benches are relieved that we have a Government who are willing to invest and cover those costs, rather than cut them, as her party would do.

As my hon. Friend knows from correspondence that I have had with him, the current funding settlement has caused significant problems in Dorset schools, but that is set against an increase of 63 per cent. in schools funding in Dorset in the past six years and significant gains in school buildings in rural and urban areas in my constituency. Head teachers in my constituency are asking when there will be some predictability about levels of funding. What is my hon. Friend doing to help head teachers plan their staffing in the future and the level of education for our children?

My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of schools in his constituency. He has made representations in a serious and committed way, and the point that he makes about the need for long-term predictability and stability is absolutely right. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 15 May, we sought a three-year pay settlement in our submission to the School Teachers Review Body last year. We did not get that, but we are determined to come back to this House and the country and give predictability for the next two years and a funding system on which head teachers can rely.

Does the Minister really think it is fair that the recent funding settlement has provided an above-average increase for the constituencies of every member of the Cabinet, but in Kent, we have seen a 3.6 per cent. increase for education when costs are rising by 7.8 per cent.? This year, Kent has balanced the books by slashing overheads and introducing a big rise in council tax. In the next two years, we will see huge, swathing cuts in our schools. Does he think that that is fair?

The commitment of the Government has to be that similar pupils in different parts of the country have the same amount of money attached to them. That applies in Kent as it does elsewhere, as we have made clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that an extra £650 per pupil is being spent in Kent in comparison with six years ago. The assurance that I give him—this is a serious point—is that, for the next two years, the final two years of the spending review, we need to come back to the head teachers and the House to secure the predictability and stability that he wants. That is our commitment.

When he proposes to announce his response to the consultation on the White Paper on higher education. [121697]

We have received a large number of comments on the Government's higher education proposals. We shall publish a summary of these shortly.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. We will certainly look forward to seeing the response in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Given that consultation on the White Paper ended on 30 April, which is some time ago, and as the Government's response in this week's debates was tantamount to a restatement of the whole document, what are the prospects of any changes in policy to meet the concerns that have been expressed?

My hon. Friend was a very important contributor to one of those debates. Of course, we were debating one party's policy to contract higher education and reduce opportunities for youngsters from working-class backgrounds to enter university, and the policy of another party that agrees that extra funding is needed, but denies that there should be any contribution whatever from graduates.

Given that the Secretary of State has just admitted that the Government, for all their rhetoric, have not to date made any advances in terms of the participation of disadvantaged students, which does the Minister think will have the greater effect on such participation—the aimhigher scheme or the imposition of top-up fees?

Let me say to my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I am sorry, it is the Johnson and Boswell thing, I am afraid. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in this regard for 40 years. When the Robbins report was produced in 1962, it decided that moving to a system of grant-maintained higher education would narrow the gap. It did not do so, and neither, incidentally—this is an important point for the Conservative party—did the introduction of tuition fees do anything to worsen that gap. The gap has stayed stubbornly and obscenely in place over the past 40 years. How do we address that?

What observations has my hon. Friend received on the 50 per cent. target that the Government have set for those reaching higher education? Does he envisage an increasingly diverse higher and further education sector in which the acquisition of skills is seen to be as important as academic qualifications?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That issue is a central part of our White Paper. There are two aspects to it. First, the response to the consultation, both from the sector itself and from the business community, has been very positive in respect of people in higher education. The business community recognises that if we are to keep pace with our competitors, eight out of 10 of the 1.7 million jobs that are to be created over the next decade will require graduates to fill them.

What assessment he has made of the use by schools of their reserves to meet funding shortages. [121698]

We do not yet know to what extent balances will be used by schools in this financial year, 2003–04, because in many cases local education authorities are still considering schools' budget plans.

In the course of the Secretary of State's inquiries, I invite him to consider Freckleton Church of England school in my constituency, which has already used the school's piggy bank to try to stay in business, but is £49,000 short. It is, in effect, sacking two members of staff, and is having to introduce mixed ability teaching simply to keep its head above water. There is a real problem in Lancashire, and Freckleton is but one of a number of schools that are suffering. Notwithstanding the extra money that Lancashire has received, might I ask the Secretary of State to look closely at the problems in Lancashire, especially on the Fylde coast?

I do not know the particular circumstances of Freckleton school, or whether falling rolls have been an issue there, but I can say that our information about school balances in Lancashire shows that the situation is very straightforward. At 31 March 2002, the end of the previous year, those balances totalled £40.876 million, which at 9.8 per cent. of budget share is above the national average. In the previous year ending March 2001, the total school balances in Lancashire had been only £33.663 million. We do not yet know the figure for the end of March 2003, but we understand that the latest estimates are that those balances will be greater than the £41 million that I mentioned. Schools in Lancashire have significant balances that are above the national average, so a serious resource is available.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we have a Government who have piled a fantastic amount of investment into schools, the turbulence that has occurred this year has given many schools a pretty hard time? Does he accept that it is not good enough simply to blame local authorities, given that yesterday the permanent secretary told the Select Committee on Education and Skills that only 11 local authorities were guilty of not passporting money through to schools?

The fact is that the funding of schools is a shared responsibility between national Government and local government. The turbulence, to use my hon. Friend's word, was caused by some decisions in national Government, as I have acknowledged in this House on many occasions. Local education authorities take decisions of various kinds—how much to distribute to individual schools, how much is operated centrally, and so on. I believe that both the national Government and local authorities should take responsibility for the effects of those decisions on the funding of individual schools.

Does the Secretary of State know that the permanent secretary also told the Select Committee yesterday that there was inadequate time between making the decisions and the beginning of the financial year for the Department to model the effect on schools or for local education authorities to change their funding formulae? That inadequacy, which has been recognised in normal years, was worsened by the extent of the turbulence. Did the Secretary of State's officials warn him that the time was simply too short?

The permanent secretary was right and the hon. Gentleman, in citing him, is therefore also right that there was an issue about timing. Modelling is interesting because local authorities' real decisions, for example, in setting council tax, must be taken into account. We have debated the issues fully and we shall ensure that the problems do not recur next year.

The budgets of schools in my constituency were screwed into the ground for the 12 years of the old unfair funding system. Schools in my constituency and many other poorer metropolitan districts in the north of England welcome this year's overall settlement. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the manufactured crisis that some local authorities have generated is not allowed to derail the new funding system and turn the clock back to the previous system?

I have two things to say. Despite my hon. Friend's support, which I appreciate, I do not associate myself with his language in his description of a "manufactured crisis." There is no doubt that a genuine problem had to be tackled in many schools. However, I can assure him that the fundamental formula for distributing resources throughout the country was established for three years and will remain on the basis that he described.

Has the Secretary of State seen today's survey of local education authorities? It shows that, on top of schools using reserves to cover funding shortages, 67 per cent. of the LEAs that were surveyed report redundancies among teachers or teaching assistants. Will he take the opportunity to admit that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that only a small number of teachers were being made redundant, he was simply wrong?

The Prime Minister was not wrong. I have not studied the analysis that the hon. Gentleman mentions, but The Times Educational Supplement last week advertised more than 1,000 vacancies for teachers. As the Prime Minister said the other day, this year's overall number of teacher redundancies, which are due to a variety of reasons, including falling rolls and the financial issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is broadly comparable to that of previous years. We have said that all along.

The redundancies are only the most vivid problem. In the same survey, Labour-controlled Croydon reports more than 100 posts unfilled because of financial pressures. Leeds reports 78 fewer teaching staff than last year, and in Leicestershire, 63 schools have been forced to set deficit budgets. Does the Secretary of State understand why The Guardian yesterday published a poll, which was headed:

"Voters losing faith in Labour on education"?

I acknowledge that teacher redundancies are only part of the problems and constraints that individual schools have had to tackle. We have said that throughout the process. I also acknowledge that the various reasons for the position have caused genuine problems such as the hon. Gentleman describes in schools. However, he should be honest enough to acknowledge that, under this Government, a further 25,000 teachers and 80,000 classroom assistants have been employed and there has been a vast amount of investment in schools' capital. He should have the grace to acknowledge that, as I acknowledge the strength of one or two of his points. The Government's education record has been outstanding.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for Brent's settlement this year and for the way in which the schools have been able to manage it? However, I draw to his attention Claremont school, which has had to go into reserves to balance its books this year. Will he congratulate Brent education authority on the additional contribution, above the 100 per cent. passporting, that it made to ensure that schools throughout the borough can maintain their staffing levels and survive this year? Will he also examine the inner and outer London education authority hangover in the problem of teacher pay with which boroughs such as Brent must cope?

First, I acknowledge the inner-outer London issue that my hon. Friend raises. I am sure that that is one of the matters that the review body will consider for future years. Secondly, I give credit to Brent and the many other local education authorities that have put money above the 100 per cent. passporting into education in their areas. Thirdly, on reserves and balances, there is an issue about what they are for. They are not simply to be kept stored in a bank account; they are there to get real things and good quality education. It is quite reasonable for reserves and balances to be held at a reasonable level, but above that, it is reasonable to use the resources to improve the quality of education.

Setting aside the £1,500 per child per year difference that still exists between Somerset and leafy London boroughs, may I ask the Secretary of State to look at some of the schools in my constituency—such as Bruton primary school, which I visited last week—which are facing real problems because their reserves have already been factored in for dealing with changes in rolls, yet they still face teacher redundancies? The Somerset education authority has written to him seeking a meeting, but he has written back saying that his diary is too full. Will he please reconsider that and meet the representatives of Somerset to discuss this very important issue?

On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I am happy to meet Members of the House from all parties with delegations to discuss these and other issues. If he cares to write to me, I will certainly look at doing that. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has had a wide range of meetings in precisely that way. As I have said throughout this discussion, particular schools have particular issues, which are real and need to be addressed. We will continue to help local authorities to help them to do that.

If he will visit the Colchester sixth form college to discuss funding for the college. [1217011]

Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. However, the hon. Gentleman should not despair, because my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education hopes to be able to visit the college in the autumn and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the increase in funding for further education over the next three years and the college's development plan for that period.

I warmly welcome that response. When the Minister visits the college, will he explain why a sixth form college that puts in a new building gets only a 30 per cent. building grant, while sixth forms in a school get a 100 per cent. grant? Also, why is it that, in the seventh year of a Labour Government, students who attend one of the 100 or so sixth form colleges across the country receive, on average, 25 per cent. less funding than sixth form students in schools? Why is there such an unlevel playing field between students at sixth form colleges and those who attend sixth form in a school?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the £370,000 grant recently awarded to the college to help build its new information technology and education block, or for the 19 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for the college sector over the next three years, or for the 7 per cent. real-terms increase in funding for full-time equivalent students over the same period. Where was the hon. Gentleman when we have spoken in the House, as we have done frequently, about the most ambitious investment and reform package for further education for a generation, which has the clear objective of closing the funding gap between 16 to 19-year-olds educated in schools and those educated in college settings? As to the question of VAT, that is a matter that Customs and Excise is currently considering.

What plans he has to extend testing of school children throughout England to those aged 14. [121702]

None.

I sense something of a U-turn here, because there have been authoritative reports in the newspapers that such testing might be introduced. Will the Secretary of State give the House an unequivocal assurance that the Government have no plans to scrap GCSEs or to have examinations for 14-year-olds? Will he say that clearly today, because such plans would adversely affect pupils and would not guarantee an improvement in the quality of learning in schools?

The report in The Times to which the hon. Lady refers was, in fact, completely incorrect, which is why I answered "None" just now. For her information, there are examinations at the age of 14. They are called key stage 3 examinations, and they will continue. We have no plans to scrap GCSEs, but we do have plans carefully to consider the report of a commission chaired by Mike Tomlinson on the whole of 14-to-19 education, and to come to a series of views about where we should go. Mr. To mlinson's committee will be producing initial thoughts later this year, and a final report at the turn of next year which everyone can consider and discuss in those circumstances.

What criteria he uses to assess applications for re-designations of schools as specialist schools. [121704]

Specialist schools applying for re-designation are assessed against rigorous criteria. These consist of: first, progress in relation to the objectives of the programme and the targets set by the school; secondly, improvement in academic performance both in specialist subjects and across the whole school; thirdly, the quality of the specialist school development plans for the next four years.

Will my hon. Friend consider widening the assessment criteria to take into account educational and wider community benefits? Churchfields school in my constituency partly serves one of the most deprived areas in the south-west and was widely welcomed as a specialist school. The school has turned itself around and come out of special measures. It has achieved a 50 per cent. increase in academic standards and one need only look at the performing arts to see the huge talent that it is developing, yet it has been told that it cannot continue as a specialist school.

My hon. Friend has spoken and written to me about the case of Churchfields school. I can assure the House that I do not decide; an independent panel looks carefully at every case and makes recommendations about re-designation. My hon. Friend will agree that the re-designation process has to be fair and objective. I know that Churchfields has appealed against the decision of the independent panel. The appeal will be considered in the new academic year to take account of its results this year. I look forward to the school making significant progress during that time.

Will the Minister recognise the sense of disappointment often felt by heads, teachers, governors and parents when a school's application for specialist status is rejected? Will he look again at the application by Carterton community college in my constituency, a school without a sixth form which serves the local population around RAF Brize Norton and has a transient population? The headmaster is doing an excellent job in terms of discipline and results. The school applied for specialist status and was very disappointed not to get it. I hope that he will be able to look at the case again.

I can do better than the hon. Gentleman hopes, in the following sense: our commitment is to work with the schools to help prepare them for specialist status so that they are in a position to make the most of it. I cannot revisit the decision to reject the application, but I am committed to working with the school to make sure that the application next time is of a sufficient standard to get through.

Does my hon. Friend agree that schools are far less likely to be rejected under this Government's specialist schools policy than under the previous Government, because we are putting in the money? When considering the specialist schools round, will he look carefully at Aylesford school in my constituency, which will share £60 million of private finance initiative new buildings, including a school in Ashford, about which I am sure the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) will be pleased? Will he look carefully at this school? The buildings are dilapidated, the staff are working very hard, the results are improving and it deserves to get the green light.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for getting me back on message. When we came to office, there were only 100 specialist schools. There are now 900 and we predict that that will rise to about 2,000 by 2006. He will agree that they are making a substantial contribution to the rising standards across the country. I will look seriously at individual cases as they come through, but every judgment is made on an objective and independent basis.

What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the bureaucracy and red tape surrounding specialist school applications? One of my local schools, Hampton community college, which is desperately short of staff—especially senior staff—had to set aside three of its five most senior teachers for a term to make a bid that subsequently failed.

That is an important and good point and I can provide some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman. The 250-page form is being reduced to a 50-page form in the new round, making a significant difference to the bureaucracy associated with the application for specialist status.

What the increase in average pay for teachers has been since 1997. [121706]

The average salary for full-time regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales rose from £22,900 in March 1997 to £27,200 in March 2001, the last year for which information is available. This represents an increase of 18.7 per cent. in cash terms, and 7 per cent. in real terms.

I thank the Minister for that announcement. He will undoubtedly agree that that welcome increase has contributed to the large rise in the number of teachers an extra 25,000 or so since 1997. But will he reassure me that he will examine the work load agreement with teachers and use it, together with increased salaries, to help to recruit, and above all to retain, teachers?

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The Government said in their evidence to the School Teachers Review Body last year that outside London, teacher salaries were in our view competitive. Indeed, current recruitment rates bear that out: there are 4,000 more teachers this year than last year. The top priority for teachers in terms of recruitment and retention is work load, and the work load agreement that we have introduced—in conjunction with support staff unions, head teacher unions and the majority of teaching unions—represents a first and historic attempt genuinely to change teachers' working conditions over the next three years. I believe that that will happen, and that the agreement will have the impact on retention that my hon. Friend hopes for.

Does the Minister realise that although the school achievement awards seem a good idea per se in order to reward teachers for good service and for having special skills, they create real difficulties for head teachers in meeting their budgets? In Staffordshire, which passes on 106 per cent. of the amount allocated to education by the Government, schools are having real difficulty in providing a fair and equitable distribution of awards to teachers. What steps can this Minister take to ensure that schools not only in Staffordshire but in other parts of England and Wales are not pressured in such a way that they are unable to pass on these awards?

If I understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, there are two parts to it. First, he will be reassured to know that school achievement awards are funded centrally, so there is no question of the money coming out of schools' budgets. Secondly, there is clear guidance on how the money should be allocated between staff, and he is of course right to point out that it is for the whole school team, not just for teachers.

What estimate he has made of the average debt of students leaving higher education in (a) Wales and (b) England in the last three years. [121707]

My Department's last survey of student income and expenditure covered the academic year 1998–99. Results from the 2002–03 survey, including estimates of the debt of students in England and Wales who graduate in summer 2003, will be available later this year. According to the UNITE/MORI student living reports, the average debt anticipated by students at UK universities was £7,026 in 2000–01, £8,133 in 2001–02, and £8,816 in 2002–03. They did not give comparative figures for England and Wales, however.

I thank the Minister for that useful reply. Has he had an opportunity to read the report published yesterday by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which examined the White Paper's models on top-up fees and student debt? At a conservative estimate, graduates will be burdened with debt for 10 years as a result of the White Paper's proposals. What can the Minister say today about the rising debt burden on students, and about the indisputable fact that that will not help access to higher education for those from poorer backgrounds?

I have had a chance to read the headline figures: that same report said that the Conservatives' policy would be to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Debt is a very important issue. On the White Paper's proposals, it has been said that we are adding another £9,000 to student debt by increasing the current level from£12,000—three student loans of £4,000—to £21,000. However, in terms of the poorest students—the main topic of the question—one must take account of the fact that we will be introducing a £1,000 non-repayable maintenance grant. So provided that a student takes that grant instead of £1,000 worth of loan, the overall figure will be reduced by £3,000. We will also be providing fee remission of up to £1,100 on the same basis as applies to tuition fees, so a further £3,300 can be deducted from the overall figure. So we are comparing £12,000 with £14,700. As to the time it takes to repay—

Order. The Minister should write to the hon. Member.

Is it not true that the Government have introduced income-contingent loans rather than mortgage-style loans, which led to an enormous burden, particularly for women? The problem with mortgage-style loans was that, once someone had started to pay back the student loan, payments had to continue at the same rate no matter what the student's earnings, even if there were no earnings at all. Is not income-contingent repayment a much more sensible and fairer way of paying back?

I apologise for getting bogged down in figures earlier, Mr. Speaker.

Order.

The Minister has given two very long answers, and you have rightly called him to order, Mr. Speaker. However, I have a very simple question for him. Is there any evidence that students from poorer backgrounds are put off going to university because of the fear of building up debt?

There is obviously a question about debt, as the White Paper clearly states. It is, of course, an issue, but we also say that the main problem of getting youngsters into higher education revolves around the question of aspiration, attainment, application and then admission. [Interruption.] It is not just about whether there is debt or no debt. Debt existed under the previous Government's policies; there has always been student debt. The question is how best to deal with it and ensure that it is not too much of a burden on future aspirations.

If he will make a statement on school funding in 2003–04. [1217091

We have invested a record £2.7 billion more in education funding this year, and we have introduced a new funding system which is widely recognised as being fairer than the old one. However, as we have discussed today and on many other occasions, some schools have faced difficulties this year. We are committed to ensuring that every school receives a reasonable per pupil increase for next year and the year after that.

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. However, despite Hampshire county council exceeding the Government's passporting targets, schools in my constituency have to balance the books this year, and if they are to avoid making redundancies, they have to use their reserves. If schools in Fareham do not receive a fair deal for the funding that they need, redundancies will hit next year rather than this.

I take seriously the views of the head teachers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, who are writing to explain the position. However, if he is interested in a fair deal, he should try to persuade his Front Benchers to support the current levels of spending—we have not yet heard whether they do. Until he persuades them, we cannot take him seriously.

I am someone who is interested in a fair deal, so will the Minister remind us and explain to the House again why a school in a deprived area in a county such as Hertfordshire should receive more Government funding than a school in Tamworth with the same level of deprivation, facing the same cost profile? Will he tell us?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be reassured to know that the pupils in the two schools to which he referred receive the same amount of money from the Government. The difference is in how the local education authority in each case decides to spend that money.

Not true.

The Government provide the same money per pupil across the country where the circumstances of the pupil are the same. The local education authority then has a choice about whether to fund similar pupils in the same way at school level. That is a choice that local authorities have to make.

What would the Minister say to the London borough of Havering, which received an increase of only 3.5 per cent. in its central Government grant this year? It has passported well in excess of 100 per cent. of its education grant to its schools, yet the very small grant that it received means that schools are still suffering extreme financial hardship as they try to balance their budgets. No matter how much the authority passports to schools, it is still not enough.

The hon. Lady will know that the amount of money available for distribution to schools depends partly on how much money comes from central Government and partly on how much is raised locally. The distribution to individual schools depends on the number of pupils in each school. I do not know whether the schools to which she refers are losing pupils, but that is a significant problem in a number of primary schools. There are 50,000 fewer primary school pupils this year than there were last year. I am afraid that there will be 50,000 fewer again next year, and another 50,000 fewer the year after that. That is a problem across the country, and we have to take it seriously.

What plans she has to train more Crown Prosecution Service staff to become qualified lawyers. [121686]

This week, the CPS law scholarship programme was launched. This will give full financial sponsorship to CPS administrative and clerical staff to qualify as lawyers. The importance of the scheme is that it will extend opportunities, broaden the legal profession and give the CPS a supply of home-grown lawyers.

My right hon. and learned Friend deserves much credit for the law scholarship scheme, whose launch I attended with her on Tuesday. I congratulate her on that achievement. I am pleased for the CPS staff who will benefit from the self-improvement that the scheme offers, but does she agree that the real praise should go to the CPS for taking up the scheme? It represents the most efficient use of resources and it is bound to help with recruitment and retention in the years to come.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I shall pass on his warm words of welcome to where they belong—that is, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the human resource team in the CPS and the chief Crown prosecutors. The previous discussion in the House was about improving access to education and training, but the point of the programme is that it can be very expensive to qualify as a lawyer. The fees alone can amount to £13,500. It also costs a lot—up to £20,000—for the CPS to recruit a lawyer. Instead of spending money recruiting lawyers from outside, the aim is to recruit administrative and clerical people who have ability, commitment and intelligence but who have never had the opportunity. The scheme will also strengthen the legal profession, which will be more diverse and therefore have more legitimacy.

I welcome what the Solicitor-General has said about currently employed CPS staff training as lawyers. However, will she ensure that during training they are also given specific and detailed guidance on the use of expert witnesses? That is especially important in light of the answer given yesterday in another place by the Attorney-General in connection with the tragic cases of Sally Clarke and Trupti Patel. Does she agree that it is crucial that all parts of the CPS are very careful in the use of expert witnesses, especially in tragic cases such as that?

Indeed, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I shall go further. He has asked before about matters arising from the Sally Clarke case, and I undertook to tell the House, after the Court of Appeal's written judgment was handed down, about the action that the CPS intended to take. In relation to current and existing cases involving either Dr. Williams or Professor Meadows as expert witnesses, guidance has been issued to the CPS about full disclosure of the Court of Appeal judgment on the defence. There will also be scrutiny and review of past cases in which convictions may have been secured on the evidence of Dr. Williams, to ensure that lessons are learned. I remind the House that, although serious issues were involved. neither the Court of Appeal in the Sally Clarke case nor the court of first instance in the Trupti Patel case made any criticism of the CPS.

While it is important to improve the quality and training of CPS staff, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary that they make the right decisions? In Leicestershire and in my constituency of Loughborough in particular, a number of cases against local drug dealers have been lost. Everybody on the estate knew who they were, the police put enormous cases together and we were all confident that we could get a prosecution, but the local CPS plea-bargained and got those people off with only a light fine.

My hon. Friend's question raises a number of important points, which are being addressed by the CPS. The CPS needs to work closely with the police and to focus on the effect of its decisions on victims and witnesses. That is certainly happening. I remind the House, however, that the CPS must be sure that there is enough evidence, that the jury or the magistrates are more likely than not to convict, and that prosecution is in the public interest. That is the basis on which the CPS reviews cases.

How many successful prosecutions there were in respect of environmental offences during 2002. [121687]

There were 795 prosecutions by the Environment Agency in 2002, resulting in fines totalling £3.6 million. There are 50 Environment Agency prosecutors working across eight regions; they work with other agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and English Nature.

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. Will she pass on my thanks to the Home Secretary for making good his assurance to the House that he would amend the Criminal Justice Bill to provide better regulation of the trade in endangered species?

I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Home Secretary. I think that he is referring to the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the penalty for endangered species trade offences. That would make those offences arrestable, which deals with one of the issues that he raised.

In welcoming the work of the CPS on these matters, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that, when cases are not seen through to prosecution, the complainants and witnesses who support the prosecution are told that it is not going ahead and are given the reasons, so that members of the public who try to co-operate with the prosecuting agencies and help them are kept informed of what is going on?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is nothing worse for a victim than to learn only when they open their local newspaper that the case against the person who had committed an offence against them has been dropped. They may not even read it in the paper, but hear of it from a neighbour or someone living in the area. The CPS is addressing that, with a new programme of direct communication with victims and witnesses. When charges are dropped or downgraded, the CPS lawyer responsible will write to the victim to tell them. That initiative is long overdue, but we should do more and build on the direct communication programme to ensure that victims who support prosecutions, in the public interest, are properly looked after by the criminal justice system.

Does the Minister accept that the abuse of public places by those who get rid of their chewing gum on pavements, pedestrian areas and market squares is an environmental offence? How many successful prosecutions are brought against those people, who despoil public places to the great inconvenience of so many members of the public? This is a real issue; what can be done about it?

I do not know whether what the hon. Gentleman is referring to really comes within the definition of environmental offences or whether it would better suit antisocial behaviour legislation, but I will undertake to look into it and write to him.

If she will make a statement on co-operation on extraditions between her office and her opposite numbers in (a) EU and (b) EU accession states. [121689]

The Attorney-General and I have responsibility for extradition cases from Ireland. We discuss these regularly with the Irish Attorney-General. Requests for extradition from EU and accession states are dealt with by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Our treaty obligations and those of other European Union countries in relation to extradition are not working. There are 22 requests from France outstanding from the past five years which we have been unable to respond to—one each for 1995, 1996,1997 and 1998. If it was the other way round, some members of our press and hon. Members in this place would be going up the wall. Spain has two requests from 1996. Spain and the UK have a disgraceful mutual track record. Is it not time that we addressed this issue, so that within the European Union there is swift, fast-track extradition, ensuring that people are brought to court in all these fair jurisdictions?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If offences are committed here but the evidence is abroad or the defendant is abroad, we want them back here so that we can bring them to justice. Similarly, if people commit offences abroad and the other country wants them, we should ensure that we expeditiously arrange for them to be extradited.