How many Scottish-domiciled students have enrolled at (a) English and (b) Welsh universities since September 1999 [141756]

The latest information available for 2001–02 shows that there were 26,456 Scottish—domiciled student enrolments at English higher education institutions and 672 at Welsh HEIs. In 1999, there were 24,305 such students at English HEIs and 518 at Welsh HEIs.

Will not Scottish students have to pay up to £3,000 in up-front fees while their English colleagues will be able to defer those fees until after graduation? Will not the introduction of those fees increase the barriers to widening access to university education in England, whereas those barriers have been reduced in Scotland, with more than 53 per cent. of 18-year-olds now accessing university?

Under devolution, the Scottish Executive rightly decide what happens in Scotland. It is important to realise that the figures have remained constant since not just 1999 but 1997. There has been no reduction in the number of Scottish students looking to study in England since the introduction of fees. Indeed, in Scotland, Scottish students pay £2,000 into the graduate endowment scheme; that situation will continue unless it is changed by the Scottish Executive.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more Scottish students would be attracted to study in Wales if the Welsh Assembly could implement its Labour party manifesto policy of six months ago not to have top-up fees? Has my right hon. Friend discussed that with Jane Davidson, the Welsh Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning? If the Welsh Assembly can avoid top-up fees, will the Government consider applying that policy in England, too?

As supporters of devolution, we keep in constant touch with my opposite number in the Welsh Assembly, Jane Davidson, and with the Scottish Executive. The maintenance grant that is to be introduced next year will apply to Wales as well as England. I understand that the Welsh Assembly has ruled out introducing variable fees until 2007, when it will reconsider the issue through the Rees commission. That is entirely appropriate. Until then, Welsh students will continue to pay the £1,125 up-front fee.

If I understood the Minister's response correctly, it will be up to the devolved Administrations to decide whether they want to offer those of their students who are studying in England the option of deferment by providing them with a loan. Will they have to find that money from within their existing budgets, or will additional moneys be made available to enable them to offer that option?

They would have to find it from within their existing budgets. The other important point to mention is that the Bill that is to be introduced fully devolves the issue of student support to the Welsh Assembly. We are happy to do that in the spirit of devolution, but I understand that Plaid Cymru opposes it.

What assessment he has made of the differences between flat-rate and variable university tuition fees, with particular reference to the equity of each. [141757]

Our assessment is that a flat-rate fees system would be more unfair than a variable fees system. It would force every university to charge the same amount across the board, irrespective of the demand, nature or quality of the course, or the potential rate of return for the student, thus removing the flexibility to target foundation degrees or degrees in subjects such as physics or other sciences. It would lead to course closures, institutions having no flexibility in deciding what to do, and lower quality. It would mean that we would be unable to influence access through the regulator, as we propose. Finally, it would lead to redistribution from poorer to more affluent students.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is not it the case that the majority of students in the United Kingdom have always been eligible for variable fees because most of them are not full-time undergraduates? If he were vice-chancellor of a smaller, post-1992 university, at what amount would he be inclined to set the fee?

My hon. Friend's first point is correct. The undergraduate fee is unique when compared with other fees, because of the current regulation. If I were in the enviable circumstance that my hon. Friend described, I would set a range of fees for different courses in the university of which I was vice-chancellor, taking account of the demand, the nature of the course and the sort of encouragement that I wished to offer to get students for specific subjects. I would not set a fee for the whole university but would consider each course separately.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State claimed that a university that charged a zero fee would encourage students to study there, thus admitting that universities that charge a full fee would discourage students from studying there. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that fees at the level that the Government propose would raise only a fraction of the money that they need to implement their policy. How high does he expect the fee to rise—to £4,000 or £5,000 a year? Whatever the level, is not it true that the Government's policy means that access to university will be on the basis of ability to pay, not academic merit?

First, although I have not had an opportunity to consider in detail the Institute for Fiscal Studies report, which the Evening Standard commissioned, I have been briefed on it and it is based on a set of tendentious assumptions both about the fees to be charged and the Government's policies. Secondly, we have been clear that, until at least the end of the next Parliament, there will be a maximum cap on all fees of £3,000 in real terms. The talk of £4,000 or £5,000 is not relevant. I have never hidden the fact that the fee will be a factor in a student's choice of course—that is obvious. However, it is only one among a range of factors, which include the rate of return from specific courses, the academic tradition and whether students want to study away from home

Recent research commissioned by the Secretary of State's Department shows that under the existing system, students from poorer backgrounds are leaving university with debts of almost £10,000, whereas other students leave with debts of £7,000 or just under. Given that, will my right hon. Friend explain how setting a differential fee will not encourage more working class children to choose the cheapest course closest to home?

There are several different answers to that question. First, as my hon. Friend appreciates, a series of measures is in place to provide resources for students from poorer backgrounds to go to university. The fee remission, the grant and bursaries from different universities are examples. Secondly, it is important to have a system of repayment that is based on the tax system, rather than a different sort of loan, and a zero real rate of interest, thereby taking account of an individual graduate's earnings. Another sort of loan would not do that. Both points are significant reassurances to people who intend to go to university.

Does the Secretary of State agree that whether resources for universities derive from differential fees, flat-rate fees or progressive income tax, the Chancellor will have to make an estimate of the amount of money that he will loan to universities in 2005–06? In the previous Session, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) asked the Government what the gap was. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education spoke at a meeting that I recently attended and said that it was £1 billion. Will the Secretary of State clearly define the gap that differential fees, flat-rate fees or any other mechanism are trying to plug?

There are two points. First, there is not a gap; the question is how much money would be raised. Estimates vary between £1.2 billion, £1 billion and £1.5 billion, depending entirely on the fees that are charged. I shall not make an estimate for the simple reason that we do not know the sort of fees that different universities will charge for different courses. It would be ludicrous to try to pretend that we did.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House what impact he expects his proposals to have on my constituents, whether they will lead to greater aspirations being realised for students from poorer income families and, specifically, whether there is a case for the Government looking at the threshold level being indexed to average earnings in the country?

My assessment is that our proposals will make it more, rather than less, likely that young people in my hon. Friend's constituency will see university as a real possibility. That is the example in other countries that have established such a system, such as Australia. The example of the Cambridge bursary scheme announced last week, which would provide £4,000 on top of the £1,125 fee remission and the £1,000 grant to allow students from poorer families to go to Cambridge, is a major new development even before our proposals have been introduced, but it was influenced by them, and it proves that our system will generate precisely the kind of ambition in my hon. Friend's constituency that I know he wants to promote.

What recent estimate he has made of the cost of a grammar school ballot. [141758]

The cost of a ballot will depend on the particular circumstances in the area in which it takes place.

At a time when the Government are supposedly supporting diversity in the types of school on offer and in the specialisations that schools can provide, why are they still fixated on attacking grammar schools and wasting time and money through their failing ballot system?

It is Conservative Front and Back Benchers who are fixated on the 4.5 per cent. of schools in the country that are grammar schools. We are fixated on raising standards in all schools.

When the Minister is considering ballots for grammar schools, will he look again at the experience of Milton Keynes in the 1990s, when the Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council forced us to go through three successive ballots to try to persuade people to vote for grammar schools, which I am happy to say they did not? Does not that demonstrate the Tory party's continuing obsession with trying to concentrate resources on a small number of children instead of using them across the piece to bring up educational achievement, particularly for low achievers?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is no extension of the 11-plus. Final decisions on school organisation, including grammar schools, are a matter for local people.

Could we have ballots for new grammar schools?

The hon. Gentleman was here in 1998 when the House debated the School Standards and Framework Bill, which specifically excluded debate on new grammar schools. [Interruption.] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon: I am told that he was not here. But some of my hon. Friends were, and the House made it absolutely clear that we want no extension of selection at age 11. If the hon. Gentleman's party wants to make that the battleground for the next general election, it is very welcome to do so.

What changes he plans to make in training provision for apprentice footballers. [141759]

Skills Active, the sector skills council for active leisure and learning, and the Learning and Skills Council are developing a modern apprenticeship framework in sporting excellence, which includes football. It is focused on aspiring professional athletes; it will cover their needs as sporting professionals, support their long-term career needs once their sporting career ends and offer a safety net for those athletes who are unsuccessful.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Much as we would like every trainee footballer to become a Stanley Matthews, David Beckham or Wayne Rooney, something like 85 per cent. of trainee footballers fall out of the game over three to four years. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will meet again with the Professional Footballers Association to make sure that the two-year apprenticeship scheme proposed by the Learning and Skills Council will meet all the academic needs of footballers? We need to make sure that those who do not make it are able to pursue education and training for other careers, which may not be in football or even in sport.

As a Manchester City supporter, I do not want young people to aspire to be David Beckham, but I am aware of the concerns expressed by some in football at the proposed changes and the timetable for implementation. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and I met representatives of the Professional Footballers Association and the chief executive of SkillsActive. I have asked them to convene a further meeting with representatives of football, including the premier league, to discuss the best way forward. It is essential that every effort he made to ensure that the new modern apprenticeship properly meets the needs of young people embarking on a career in the professional game. This issue is of equal importance to big clubs such as Manchester City and to smaller clubs such as Port Vale and Norwich City.

Bearing in mind the considerable wealth that some of these young footballers could earn in later life, should they not pay top-up fees?

The main thing about the ability of young people to enter football as a career is the fact that they pay no up-front fees at all.

When he will next meet Norfolk local education authority to discuss school budgets. [141760]

My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet Norfolk local education authority to discuss school funding. Measures to restore stability and certainty to school funding were announced on 29 October and will provide a guaranteed minimum increase in every school's per pupil funding, additional resources at LEA level, which can be targeted at schools with additional pressures, and a package of transitional support, including grant of £5.3 million for Norfolk LEA that can be targeted at those schools facing the greatest difficulty in bringing their budgets back into balance.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State was assuring Norfolk schools this time last year that all of them would have a reasonable increase in their budget in line with inflation? As he is well aware, events turned out differently, and many schools in my constituency suffered their worst budget in living memory. Beacon schools such as St. Edmundsbury, Reffley and Fairstead had cuts of up to £100,000 and had either to raid their capital reserve or to get rid of staff. The Secretary of State is saying exactly what he said last year. Can we trust him?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the events of the past year. We have tried to learn lessons from those events. I should like to quote Alec Byrne, a Conservative member of Norfolk county council and cabinet member for education, who said:

"The better the overall funding level for Norfolk, the fewer problems there will be in schools. We have been working hard to persuade the Government that Norfolk needs a better overall settlement, and that is what we appear to have achieved."

If the Secretary of State should change his view about meeting Norfolk LEA, will he and the Minister address themselves not only to the overall level of budgets but to the fairness of allocation, especially to rural areas? My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) has received a letter in the past week from the head teacher of Sheringham high school in Norfolk saying that it will have to sack two and a half teachers next year because of the new funding settlement. In my constituency, as in many other rural constituencies represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, schools, such as Settlebeck school, are for the first time ever having to go cap in hand to parents to ask for money for school books. When will the Government be fair in allocating resources to rural areas?

We seek to be fair to all areas, including rural areas. If representatives from Norfolk LEA request a meeting with my right hon. Friend, he will be more than happy to meet them. I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's comments, given the situation in his area. In Cumbria, per pupil spending on education has increased since 1997 by £960.

What about Norfolk?

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) referred to Cumbria in his question. I am happy to talk about Norfolk, and to remind the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) of the positive response from the Conservative council there. I only wish that we had the same honest response from Conservative Members in this House.

May I just say that Alec Byrne is a very sound man? Last week, I sat on a platform with him talking about the council tax—

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could put question 6.

If he will make a statement about the use of the private finance initiative in the redevelopment of schools. [141761]

The use of the private finance initiative in schools has been a popular and successful programme. It has been popular in that more than 100 of the 150 local education authorities in England have applied to take part, and it has been successful in that we have progressed from one contract covering one school in 1997 to 64 contracts covering 600 schools today. Services have started under 39 of those contracts, and they represent a private sector capital investment of more than £1.7 billion.

The Secretary of State has talked about a transfer system for capital allocation grants for schools. Hobart high school in south Norfolk, a very fine school, which the Secretary of State and I visited together to look at the classroom of the future, would willingly forgo its capital grant allocation for several years if it could get a relatively small sum to finish off the work going on under the private finance initiative so that it could properly meet all its students' needs. Do Ministers agree that there is room for more flexibility in the way capital allocation occurs in the period after a PFI contract has been let? The Secretary of State suggested that he would look at that matter. Will Ministers keep it under review, especially as the sums involved may be quite small? That could make all the difference to the schools involved.

The PFI contract for Norfolk has been particularly complex but innovative, because we have been trying to provide capital infrastructure and services in a wide range of rural schools. I think that it is the first project of that kind, and there have, to that extent, been problems with it. However, on what the hon. Gentleman asks for in relation to Hobart high school, we are looking at the situation there, and I agree entirely that we need to be flexible in how we administer that PFI contract to ensure that we get value and spread the benefits to as many schools as we can in Norfolk.

Will the Minister congratulate Tameside council and Alder high school on their new building, which has been built on budget and on time and has transformed applications to that school? It was significantly under-subscribed and now it is significantly over-subscribed. Given that record of achievement, will she look seriously at Tameside's bid for a wide range of investment in six or seven new schools in the constituency?

I congratulate Tameside council. Indeed, I congratulate all the councils that are engaged in the PFI programme. Without it, we would not have been able to achieve the level of capital investment in our schools that we have. We inherited a legacy of £750 million being invested in schools. By 2005–06, the figure will be over £5 billion. That is partly due to the PFI element. Of course, we will consider the bid from Tameside, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that bid has to be considered alongside many other bids by people anxious to participate in the programme.

I represent a constituency with several PFI schools. There is satisfaction that schools have been built on budget and on time, but there is growing alarm among head teachers at the amount of time that they have to devote to negotiating the minutiae of things such as telephone charges and who is responsible for erecting shelves in school libraries. However, can the Minister clarify one point in particular? When there is a dispute between a school and a PFI landlord about the priority to be given to the safety of children over such things as gates, who is responsible—the landlord or the school?

I will look in detail at issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me. Clearly, the safety of children must be paramount, and that should be built into the terms of the contract as they are specified. If there is a problem with a particular contract in his constituency, he should draw it to our attention. We will certainly examine it.

What plans he has for university student bursaries; and if he will make a statement. [141763]

What plans he has to provide university student bursaries; and if he will make a statement. [141767]

We have made it clear that universities will need to offer bursaries and other forms of financial support in their access agreement if they want to charge a fee above the standard level. We are considering and discussing the precise contents of access agreements and the duties of the office for fair access and will make a statement in due course.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. While I fully support the policy on fees, one aspect of its fairness is the availability of bursaries. Not all universities have the same kitty as the university of Cambridge. What about universities such as my local university, the university of Wolverhampton? What expectations does he have of such universities, and what has been their response so far to the idea of providing bursaries?

I have written to the university of Wolverhampton, and copied my letter to local MPs, because the university made a mistake in its calculations, which it has accepted, in relation to the money that may be available. I know that many local MPs were influenced by that miscalculation. Like many modern universities, it is determined to ensure that it gives bursaries. Its understandable and genuine concern is that because it has a higher level of non-traditional students—to use the jargon—it may be forced to put more of its extra income into widening participation, and in a sense be penalised for succeeding in widening participation in the past. We are seeking to deal with that important concern in discussions with the university sector.

The transparency review process showed that all universities are short of money to support their teaching infrastructure, including staff salaries. Is it reasonable to expect all those universities to recycle some of the fees money into bursaries? Would it not be better if the Government supported poorer students by increased maintenance grants? Will my right hon. Friend explain the expression "above the standard fee"?

Universities need money to invest in their infrastructure and the pay of people who work for them—I am talking about all staff, not just academics, whose pay has fallen behind—and they tell us that they will also earmark a proportion of the extra money for bursaries. Whether universities should be forced to put a certain amount of money to one side is a controversial point that we are in discussions about.

Do Ministers appreciate that while they temporise in taking decisions and submitting them for the judgment of the House, universities have to get on with the job of issuing prospectuses, including those for students who will commence their studies in 2006, at a time when the details of the tuition fee structure, the bursaries available—state or private—and the access agreements are completely unclear to them?

Let me try to make matters clear. The new arrangements will not be introduced until after the next general election—after 2006. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We need to ensure that we have the Bill in place and that it receives Royal Assent in time for the cohort of students who are looking to take up their places in 2006–07 to be aware of the fees and the access agreements, and we are working to that time scale.

Bursaries help poorer students, but Ministers seem to be totally unaware of the impact that their proposals will have on lower-paid graduates, particularly those in key jobs. Is the Minister aware that, under his plans, 10 years after starting work an NHS radiographer will be paying £1,500 a year in debt repayments—almost 7 per cent. of take-home pay—and still have debts of more than £10,000 outstanding? How will that help to tackle the acute shortage of young people who are willing to go into key roles such as that?

Let me make it quite clear that currently the average debt, as recorded by the student income and expenditure survey, which was published last week, is £8,666. We estimate that the figure is likely to increase to around £15,000, but for poorer students there is fee remission and the introduction of a maintenance grant, and there is a much more beneficial system of repayment. The main issue is how to get more money into our universities. The hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to his post, has to explain how a serious, mainstream political party can suggest that the answer to this problem is to take away the £900 million that universities currently have and do away at a stroke with 100,000 places. I rather like the hon. Gentleman—we are going to get on famously. He said that the problem for students—

Order. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman had to say—the Minister does not need to tell the House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to create much wider access to the leadership of our national institutions and leading companies, we must first open up access to our elite universities? Bursaries will do exactly that.

That is absolutely right. We need to get youngsters from all backgrounds to acquire two decent A-levels, because where that happens, nine out of 10 go on to higher education, but there is an 8 per cent. gap between those who apply to Russell group universities, for instance, and to other types of university. That is why the Russell group published yesterday a very welcome document on its intention to provide bursaries post-2006 to help tackle this problem. My hon. Friend is right: for the first time, we have an opportunity to close the obscene social class gap that has dogged our higher education sector for the past 50 years.

On bursaries created out of fee income, will universities be free to have their own tests of income, in order to decide who gets them and who does not, or do the Government intend to impose a standard test of income across all bursary schemes?

No, we do not intend to apply a standard test of income. We intend to look at how universities are helping to widen participation, and to help students from poorer backgrounds. That could take the form of outreach activity in primary schools, which has had a marked effect, and raising the aspiration of 14-year-olds to go to university. It could also take the form of providing extra pastoral care, student support through extra grants, and so on. The access regulator's directions will be published when the House considers the legislation. We need to be clear that a proper arrangement is in place to help such students, and it forms a major element of our proposals.

What assessment he has made of the availability of practical training courses in the post-16 education system. [141764]

Every local learning and skills council has been asked to undertake a strategic area review of its post-16 provision. These reviews will identify changes required to ensure that young people and adult learners in every community have access to a choice of high quality provision that supports their progression and attainment. Such provision will include quality vocational education. Some 230,000 young people are currently undertaking modern apprenticeships in this country—the highest ever number. In our skills strategy, we announced our intention to introduce a new entitlement to a free first level 2 qualification for all adults.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but does he agree that our country and society, including industry and commerce, are in dire need of more young people with practical experience, qualifications and expertise? The question of whether young students go on to further or higher education should be based on their needs, merits and qualifications, and not on an arbitrary target of entry to university, or to any other higher education institution.

This Government are committed to ensuring that we have high quality, high status vocational education, and that we do not divide young people into sheep and goats, as the Conservatives seek to do. I should point out that a significant proportion of the 50 per cent. of young people who will go into higher education will do so via vocational education. If we repeat the mistakes of history and say that the choice is between either vocational education or higher education, and that we regard vocational education as second rate, we will again fail to deliver the high quality, high status vocational education that we need.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, which is going through the most profound economic and social changes, we continue to be blighted by a skills gap? It is amazing that while those changes are taking place there is still a lack of the necessary skills. Is he satisfied that the balance between education and skills that our learning and skills councils are operating is correct?

The challenge in closing the skills gap is to ensure that far more young people stay on in some form of education or training, and make progress post-16, while giving the adults who are already in the labour market, or who are still on the edge of it, the opportunity to up their skills. School standards, Sure Start and a new approach to education between 14 and 19, combined with a coherent adult skills strategy that enables millions of adults who are already in the workplace to upskill, is the most effective long-term way to narrow the skills gap that continues to undermine this country's productivity.

Globalisation demands the raising of post-16 and adult education skills and standards, but the recent Ofsted and adult learning inspectorate reports were highly critical of existing provision. In addition, the Learning and Skills Council figures demonstrate that the three-year funding allocation will not even provide sufficient money for the Government's core priorities of education and basic skills for 16 to 18-year-olds. What does the Minister intend to do to reverse that situation, and will he assure the House that the anticipated and feared funding shortfall—equivalent to losing 10,000 full-time students, or up to 70,000 part-time students—will not materialise?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman both to the House and to the Front Bench, but it does not seem to me that, in the context of a debate about education, a party that advocates 20 per cent. cuts in education spending can say that there are inadequate resources to deliver the education reforms that we need. It is true that we need to improve the quality of work-based learning: 60 per cent. of work-based training courses were not adequate, but in 12 months that proportion went down to 46 per cent., and the work that the Learning and Skills Council and the inspectors are doing to raise standards is beginning to come through and improve the quality of provision. We are not complacent or smug, but the fact that the largest ever number of young people—230,000—are undertaking modern apprenticeships demonstrates that we are beginning to change attitudes to the importance of practical training.

What alternative proposals for closing the funding gap in university expenditure to those contained in the White Paper on higher education he has assessed. [141765]

The four principal alternative options for student finance and university funding are an increase in flat-rate fees, a graduate tax, an increase in general taxation, and real rates of interest on student loans. We have placed in the Library and supplied to the Select Committee information and analysis on each of those. Our conclusion is that variable deferred fees are the best option for securing the investment that our universities need, while giving them the freedom to respond to student demand, and providing for fair repayments for graduates.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to get the extra money into universities, the principal alternative to the Government proposal is an increase in general taxation on the public, 83 per cent. Of whom did not go to university? Many of them—people such as waiters and chefs—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about cleaners?"]—and cleaners, too, earn a great deal less than £15,000 a year. Is the system that the Government are proposing not by far the fairest, as well as being very similar to the system already agreed by the Liberals for Scotland?

I wholly agree with the implication of my right hon. Friend's question. I add to his attack on that particular solution the point that, in respect of income from either general or graduate taxation, any Secretary of State has to face choices in priorities between university education and, for example, under-fives or primary education. There will always be pressure, which I personally welcome, to invest in the younger ages where we can make the greatest impact on reducing educational deprivation.

In examining the options for plugging the funding gap, has the Secretary of State thought of making variable top-up and tuition fees retrospective to the 1960s and 70s, when he and his Cabinet colleagues went to university, paid absolutely nothing for it and even received grants? Does he not understand the anger of parents in this country who look at him and his mates and wonder why people who received their university education for nothing are so keen and hungry to clobber today's children?

I know that the modern Conservative party has made a study of retrospection, as indeed it should. I also know that the modern Conservative position is retrospection—to go back to the elitist education of the 1960s. I believe that the country needs to look forward to the future rather than backwards, which means creating a university system that truly creates a competitive economy and strong society for the future.

Before my right hon. Friend publishes the higher education Bill in January, will he undertake not just to knock down the alternatives but to engage in an open discussion about alternatives from first principles, starting with his own estimates—not some vice-chancellor's estimates—of university funding?

Yes, I will. As my hon. Friend will know, we have already had many discussions—directly and with others—on precisely those matters and from first principles. I have found all the discussions exciting and illuminating, though I am not sure whether he felt the same about my responses. I agree that a proper discussion of these issues, based on proper assessments, is right. I will say, however, as an important qualification, that many assumptions depend on what modelling is used for different sources of income for fees and so forth. That is not a particularly productive area of debate. The productive area is to examine the real alternatives from first principles, precisely as he suggests, in a direct and frank manner. We will do precisely that.

British universities look with some envy on the endowment income that universities abroad, particularly in the United States, receive. What long-term attention is he paying to finding imaginative incentives at this stage in order to help British universities to begin the process of building up their endowment income? At some stage in the future, it must play a larger part in funding than it does now.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. We do need to build the tradition that exists in some other countries. To that end, we have set up a working party—led by the vice-chancellor of Bristol university, Eric Thomas, and including a range of individuals with substantial experience of how other countries have operated in that respect—to establish what sort of encouragement we should provide. It will consider whether we should make any changes in our taxation regime. Off hand, I cannot recall the precise timetable of the report, but we are close to being able to do so. I have just been advised by my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), that the detailed report on encouraging endowments should be published in April. Such endowments are important for universities' independence, as well as their funding.

When he will conclude a new software licence agreement for schools with Microsoft. [141766]

I am pleased to announce that the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency and Microsoft have today signed a memorandum of understanding that, when implemented, will reduce the cost of Microsoft products to schools in England by as much as £46 million over the next three years. The new arrangements will come into effect from 1 January 2004. I believe that such an agreement demonstrates the advantages of co-ordinated procurement for schools across the country in respect of several different products, and I want to pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning on that matter over a considerable period.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and his kind words. I also thank him for the close interest that he has taken in this matter. This is really good news for schools. It was wrong that schools, which now have so many more computers because of the Government funding that enabled them to buy them, had to pay so much in licence fees to Microsoft. It was wrong that schools paid a higher rate than universities. I thank my right hon. Friend again for his fine announcement.

I thank my hon. Friend and I express my appreciation to both Microsoft, which worked well with us to try to find an agreement, and BECTA, which is negotiating effectively. As there are 25,000 schools in England but only a small number of suppliers, there is a powerful case in market terms for a more co-ordinated policy for the procurement of a number of different products. The case is strong both in terms of value for money for schools and in releasing more resources.

What estimate he has made of the total level of debt of students following the introduction of top-up fees. [141769]

The level of student loan after the introduction of variable fees will depend on a number of factors: the level of fee charged by the student's higher education institution; how much loan they take out to cover the cost of that fee; how much maintenance loan they choose to take out; and the level of any bursary made available by the university. Those will all be decisions for higher education institutions and individual students.

Surely, the Secretary of State has made an estimate of what the increase in student debt will be. Is not it true to say that it will probably double, and that that is most likely to lead to a graduate brain drain, whereby people go abroad to avoid having to pay considerable debts? Has he made any assessment of that?

I certainly do not accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, one can make a series of assessments based on different positions, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). Such assessments can be produced. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education said earlier, our current estimate is just under £9,000 of debt, and it will go up under our proposals—of that there is no doubt—but not to the level indicated in some of the reports. As I said earlier, what is really important is to discuss the fundamentals of the scheme and to understand how it will impact.

What recent steps the Crown Prosecution Service has taken to improve the recruitment and retention of staff, with particular reference to prosecutors. [141776]

The Crown Prosecution Service has taken a number of steps to improve recruitment and retention of staff, particularly lawyers, which has resulted in a 26 per cent. increase in the number of lawyers in the CPS since 2001.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will she accept my sincere tribute to her personally for her hard work and the committed attempts that she has made to raise working-life standards in the CPS? I especially draw attention to her commitment to the training of non-legal staff so that they can obtain qualifications that enable them to aspire to go on to become prosecutors. Is not that the best way to improve working conditions in the CPS and to aid recruitment and retention?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments and I will pass them on to those in the CPS who have worked on the CPS law scholarship programme. We want to ensure that administrative and clerical employees in the CPS have the prospect of becoming lawyers if they have the interest, potential and capacity to do so. That is what the CPS law scholarship scheme will do. We originally planned to have 213 CPS law scholars; this year—the first year of the scheme—we have 231. That is good not only for the CPS but for the legal profession, as it will reform the profession from the bottom up.

What progress has been made on improving the co-ordination between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. [141777]

Proper co-ordination between the police and the CPS is vital at all levels. At ministerial level, the Attorney-General and I work with our ministerial colleagues in the Home Office. In Essex, the chief crown prosecutor, John Bell, and the chief constable work together as part of the local criminal justice board. The police and the CPS work together on the front line as a prosecution team in Essex.

The right hon. and learned Lady is having a very good morning, as I, too, shall congratulate her on her answer. I thank her for her answer and congratulate the Government on their initiative. The CPS in Essex is running the only whole-county pilot and has shown how valuable such a scheme can be. Will she join me in congratulating Essex CPS, and will she roll out the pilot scheme across the whole country so that other areas can benefit from it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, which are justly deserved by the prosecution team in Essex. The team warmly welcomes his interest in its work. I know that he has been to Southend and Chelmsford and paid close attention to that work. It is important that everyone works together in the criminal justice system. The police, the CPS and the courts all have their separate roles, and each is independent, but they must all work together.

I will not take up my right hon. and learned Friend's request to launch an attack on her.

As my hon. Friend knows, we very much support the new all-in-one justice centre in Nuneaton, and the CPS is very much part of it. I visited the centre at the very outset, but I should like to keep up with progress there. It is important that people do not have to go from pillar to post, as it is sometimes quite difficult for them—and especially for victims and witnesses—to find their way around the system. If we want to deter people from committing offences, and to know that the justice system is working properly, that is the way to do it.

Is the CPS working with the police to develop clear guidelines on prejudicial publicity, given the impact that it might have on failed prosecutions or the fairness of trials? That applies particularly to the police, and perhaps to members of the Home Office ministerial team. Why does the Attorney-General intervene so rarely in matters of prejudicial publicity? When is he going to do a better job in that respect?

When complaints are made that reports or comments might prejudice a fair trial, the Attorney-General always acts on them. He always investigates such complaints, and the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that he always makes the right decision about what to do. In each case, a balance has to be struck between the need for free speech, an open press and a right to know, and the need to ensure that defendants can have a fair trial. That is the ring that the Attorney-General holds. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about how the Attorney-General has acted in any individual case, perhaps he will let me know.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that CPS staff are based in Cardiff's Rumney police station? Does she agree that that means that there is a much better chance that charging standards are got right, especially in cases of assault?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it certainly does. In the past, the problem has been that the police have investigated a matter and charged someone, after which the case has been sent to the CPS. A CPS lawyer has then looked at the case and reviewed it, and decided either to change or downgrade the charge, or to drop the case altogether. That process built disappointment into the system for people who thought that their case was going ahead, only to discover that there was not sufficient evidence. The work that my hon. Friend has described means that CPS staff are able to advise the police right at the start of the process, and will ultimately bring the charges themselves. Right from the outset, therefore, the system will be fairer—for both defendants and victims, because a case will either be going to trial in court, or not.

I was going to say that I intended to treat the right hon. and learned Lady far more gently than has been the case with the Home Secretary and his spin doctors over the past 24 hours, but in view of her earlier anxieties about what might happen to her career if she is not treated more harshly, that might not be the right thing to say.

Everyone—that includes absolutely everyone—must have in mind the issue of whether it will be possible for somebody to get a fair trial. That is the case. The role of the Attorney-General is to ensure that that happens and to enforce the law of contempt if a fair trial is not possible because it has been prejudiced.

If she will make a statement on the impact of the Crown Prosecution Service's role in the street crime initiative in North-East Derbyshire. [141778]

The impact of the street crime initiative has been to cut street crime and to bring more street crime cases to court. It has also had a good effect in the police and the CPS working even more closely together and in the CPS doing more to help victims of crime make statements and give evidence in court.

I welcome that response, but the question was about the street crime initiative in North-East Derbyshire. My understanding is that although it is working well within the larger conurbations, there are problems in areas such as mine. There may be a link through the displacement of crime from the neighbouring conurbation of Sheffield, which may be affecting us, and social problems arising from the decline of the manufacturing industries.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Street crime is obviously not just a problem in the big cities—the so-called street crime hotspots—it is of concern in all areas, including North-East Derbyshire. It is important for the police, the crown prosecutors, the local council and community groups to work with him as the Member of Parliament for the area to ensure that everyone is doing what they can to tackle street crime. Sometimes it might be categorised as minor crime, but it can make people fearful and it is important to bear down on it.