Which five local education authorities had the lowest percentage of students going on to higher education in 2003. [147866]

The latest available figures are for students entering in 2002, and they show that Thurrock, Manchester, Hackney, Kingston upon Hull and Knowsley had the lowest proportion of 18-year-olds entering full-time higher education courses.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I am sure that he will recognise that, within Lancashire, Burnley has a low take-up of people going on to higher education. We need to encourage our schools to encourage their students to want to go on to higher education. However, does he believe, as I do, that his move to abolish up-front fees and to provide grants and other assistance is likely to remove the barriers that exist for lower-income families in areas such as Burnley?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. I know that he shares my view, and that of the Government, that improving the schools and basic education in Burnley is an important element in being able to achieve what we all want to do. I was in Lancashire on Tuesday this week and spoke to the leadership of the county. One of the issues discussed was investment in Burnley. We need to focus both on the schools and on the higher education package that is before the House.

There is a substantial burden of new costs associated with the Government's Higher Education Bill—costs that have increased as a result of some of the concessions that the Secretary of State has been forced to make. Will the costs be met within the higher education budget or by additions to that budget?

The former.

If the costs are going to be met within the higher education budget, does that not imply that universities will not receive the full benefit of the income generated by top-up fees? If that is the case—and possibly even if it is not the case—is it not clear that the cap of £3,000 to the fees will mean that university funding needs cannot possibly be met by fees charged within the Government's cap? Will they not therefore be announcing quite soon an increase in that cap? Is the Secretary of State aware that any verbal assurance that he tries to give on this matter is undermined by the fact that the whole policy represents a breach of the promise that the Government made to electors less than three years ago?

I explained very clearly to the House last Thursday the precise safeguards that we have in place to ensure that any increase in the cap would take place only after very full consideration and by a vote of every Member of the House. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to make these observations when his proposals would take hundreds of millions of pounds out of universities and would reduce by hundreds of thousands the number of places available in universities.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we do well in terms of overall performance for A-levels and degrees, we have one of the worst performances in the OECD for young people staying on in education post-16? If more people are going to go on to higher education, is it not essential that when the educational maintenance allowance programme rolls out in September this year, the learning and skills councils and local education authorities have a real campaign so that we can get the issue on the radar of families who would otherwise ignore the prospect of staying on post-16?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in everything he says. The fact is that the early evidence on the educational maintenance allowance is very positive from the point of view of staying on. I am confident that the rolling out nationally from September that he describes will be very effective. That is the fundamental reason why we have decided to extend and strengthen the higher education grant part of our package that we shall be considering in the Bill later this Session.

The Secretary of State has just confirmed what we all know. Students from the poorest parts of the country tend to go least frequently to university. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the new scheme would be

"a prime example of the modern path to social justice".

The hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong. I do not know whether he would, for example, describe Cambridge university as a second-class university. With his educational background, he may do so. The fact is that the bursaries announced by Cambridge university of £4,000 a year for such students—

Are they part of the scheme?

They are entirely part of the scheme. It is as a result of the Office for Fair Access that these bursaries are being announced, and the £4,000 from Cambridge, plus the £1,500 grant, plus the fee remission mean that a student from a working-class background going to Cambridge will, in effect, receive £6,500 to £7,000 a year to deal with their expenses. That is a significant element, and I would not describe that as putting such students at a disadvantage.

I represent a constituency that historically has a low take-up of higher education places. While I recognise that certain measures in the Higher Education Bill will remove some of the financial disincentives for potential students, will my right hon. Friend outline the steps being taken to break down some of the cultural and aspirational blocks to students in areas such as mine?

Higher quality schools is absolutely central to the specialist schools that I identified in particular, as is the education maintenance allowance programme—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) referred—to encourage students financially. The whole structure of apprenticeship skills training leading to foundation degrees and the higher education courses in further education colleges make university courses more attractive. There is a whole package, of which the Bill is just one part, to focus on the issue to which my hon. Friend referred of raising higher education take-up rates in the poorest communities.

If he will make a statement on the use of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading in primary schools. [147867]

The National Literacy Strategy has put phonics—synthetic and analytic—right at the heart of literacy teaching in primary schools. That has contributed to the sustained improvement in literacy standards among primary school children.

The Minister may be aware that at the Kobi Nazrul school in a deprived part of Tower Hamlets, 92 per cent of 11-year-olds achieve level 4 in reading, while a school in a leafy middle-class suburb can achieve only 71 or 72 per cent. Is it the case that one of those schools places much greater emphasis than the other on synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading? Does the Minister accept that if he wants the delivery unit to report progress on his stalled target for reading, he must insist that greater emphasis is placed on synthetic phonics in primary schools?

I also pay tribute to the school to which the hon. Gentleman referred and to others in Tower Hamlets, which have demonstrated the great importance of phonics teaching—including synthetic phonics—in primary schools. Prior to the national literacy strategy, many schools were using synthetic phonics barely or not at all. The take-up is much greater than it used to be. I am considering whether we should conduct additional research to evaluate the different programmes available, to ensure that best practice is shared among primary schools throughout the country.

Has not the literacy hour—which provides a framework within which teachers can use look-and-say, phonics and synthetic phonics—been an enormous success? Should not the Department identify good practice, examine professional judgment, and promote best practice?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier this year, we published "Excellence and Enjoyment" to build on the success of the Government's literacy and numeracy strategies. Some 60,000 additional 11-year-olds are achieving at least level 4 as they leave primary school, which is important progress. As my hon. Friend said, the literacy hour and broader literacy strategy have been vital to the progress made by primary school pupils and teachers.

What support is available to help schools to deal with antisocial behaviour. [147868]

Ours is the first Government to put behaviour and attendance at the heart of the school standards agenda. Our programmes include training in consultancy support for all secondary schools, behavioural improvement, enhanced support to tackle bullying, a concerted drive to reduce truancy, the work of Connexions and of the youth services, and positive activities during school holidays for young people judged to be at greatest risk of being involved in crime and antisocial behaviour.

Does my hon. Friend agree that teachers are in the front line of antisocial behaviour by youngsters—not just as victims but as part of the solution—in working with youngsters who have behavioural problems? Will the Government consider earmarking resources for local education authorities' special educational needs budgets, so that resources can be made available centrally to schools, and provide learning support assistance? Further, does my hon. Friend agree—

Order. One supplementary question is fine.

In the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", we said that we sought to bring together all the resources that are being used in schools and by external organisations that support schools to ensure that children fulfil their potential. We want to bring the money together more cohesively to ensure that professionals work together to have maximum impact on schools' ability to nurture children's potential. We are currently reviewing that to ensure that we make best use of the vast amount of resources that are being invested in schools and support to schools.

Last week, I had the privilege of attending the north of England education conference in Belfast, at which several of the Under-Secretary's colleagues were present. I attended a seminar to promote and provide information on the success of the Prince's Trust XL club scheme. The principal who gave the address said that, in 16 years, he had not had to exclude a pupil. Will the Under-Secretary commend the use and involvement of the XL clubs project in schools as a means of increasing achievement and reducing antisocial behaviour?

I shall support the work of that programme. We have to be imaginative and innovative in using the voluntary sector and community-based organisations to support our desire to ensure that we motivate young people positively, connect them with their local community's activities and support their development as positive citizens. We need to harness all the resources that are available to us in the statutory and voluntary sectors.

The measures that the Government have taken so far are welcome, but further to the question that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked, will my hon. Friend consider seriously methods of aiding and encouraging schools to allow young people to undertake useful work in the community that improves their behaviour and breaks down the barriers between the generations? Will he consider making perhaps a small amount of pump-priming money available to enable schools to get such projects off the ground?

I agree that we need to ensure that we offer young people a personalised learning experience that is about educational attainment and their development as all-round citizens. That is why we are increasingly linking schools, colleges and employers and focusing on enterprise education. It is also why our long-term ambition for reforming education for 14 to 19-year-olds is to build a curriculum around the needs of each young person. It should consider not only educational content but their community activities.

What representations he has received on school funding in (a) North Yorkshire and (b) York for 2004–05. [147869]

We have received few recent representations about school funding in North Yorkshire and York for 2004–05. On 29 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced proposals to restore stability and certainty to school funding. In 2004–05 all authorities will have an increase in their school formula spending share of at least 5 per cent. per pupil. North Yorkshire's increase is 6 per cent. and York's is 6.8 per cent.

My pile of papers shows the number of representations that I have received from schools in my area, which covers North Yorkshire and the city of York. The Minister's school report will read: "He must try harder." The procedures are complex, bureaucratic and inflexible. There will be more staff redundancies this year and it is as difficult as ever to get money for the schools building programme. What will the Minister do about it?

I look forward to receiving representations, but the hon. Lady should give credit where it is due. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has passed on a representation to me from the director of education in York. He says:

"This year, the FSS for schools in York was significantly higher than last year and…amongst the best in the country."

"the DfES has made huge efforts to address the problems…and should be congratulated on what has been achieved."

Does my hon. Friend also know that the widely respected director of education in North Yorkshire has written to all North Yorkshire Members of Parliament to say that, in many ways, the picture for school spending is better than for many years? Will he do everything possible to sustain the increase in spending that has led to 300 extra teachers in North Yorkshire in the past five years?

I am sure that the letter also pointed out that there has been an increase of 47.9 per cent. in funding for pupils in North Yorkshire under the Government, in contrast to the cuts that occurred when the Conservative party was in power.

What representations he has received on the funding requirements of universities in 2004–05. [147870]

I have received numerous representations from universities on a number of matters relating to the funding of higher education, both in formal correspondence and in meetings with vice-chancellors and others from the higher education sector.

Even if the English universities receive more funding as a consequence of a new fee regime, will not most of that be used up in supporting teaching? What does the Secretary of State propose to do about the funding of research in the UK?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The bulk of the extra income will be used, and is intended to be used, to support teaching and to increase the quality of undergraduate education in universities. However, as he will know, the increase in research funding through the comprehensive spending review has been the most substantial in 25 years, and that will continue. I accept my hon. Friend's point that research funding is vital for the success of universities, and we certainly intend to continue to support that in every way possible.

The Secretary of State will agree that universities have been underfunded for some time. What discussions has he had with his colleagues in Northern Ireland about the impact of his policies there, bearing in mind that although Cambridge and a few other universities might be able to offer some bursaries, other universities are not in such a position, and their students could be worse off?

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I have discussed with my ministerial colleagues responsible for education in Northern Ireland. I also took the opportunity to discuss that issue, and a variety of others, with the vice-chancellor of Queen's university when I was in Belfast for the meeting of the Association of Commonwealth Universities last September. We are discussing that, and we acknowledge the cross-border issues implied in the hon. Gentleman's question. I make an open offer to him today: I am happy to discuss with him and his colleagues their concerns over how we can take our approach forward.

In my constituency, 18 per cent. of the population are university graduates. Does my right hon. Friend find it strange that some people find it quite acceptable that the other 82 per cent. have had to pay variable fees for every bit of education and training that they have had since they were 18, but consider that variable fees are unacceptable for the most privileged, that 18 per cent. who are graduates?

I agree—that is one of the more surprising aspects of this debate. The fact is that about 50 per cent. of students at our universities, including part-time, postgraduate and overseas students, already pay variable fees in precisely the way that my hon. Friend suggests. Moreover, with regard to skills training in the 16 to 19 age group, many people themselves, or their employers, pay for the education and training that they receive. I regard our proposals as creating a rational approach to that variety, and enabling universities precisely to focus on attracting students from the communities that he wants to encourage, as do I.

What recent representations he has received on top-up fees. [147871]

My Department has continued to receive correspondence on issues relating to variable fees from a range of organisations and individuals. In addition, I have had meetings with a number of MPs, vice-chancellors and representatives of interested groups to discuss and clarify the proposals set out in the Higher Education Bill. We have listened to concerns and taken account of them in the proposed student support package that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 8 January.

How will the Minister reply to those people who have written to him to remind him that the Labour party manifesto said that the Government would not introduce top-up fees and had legislated to prevent them? How has he replied to constituents who have reminded him that, according to Barclays bank, under this rotten Government students will face debts of more than £33,000 by 2010?

On the first question, we will not introduce variable fees until after the next general election. Let me just remind the hon. Gentleman of the days, which are becoming increasingly distant, when his party was in government. Government is about looking at serious problems, which we should address, not duck. I make no apology whatever for realising that the university sector requires additional funding—and extremely soon—for the economic success of this country.

Why cannot we be frank about what the debate before us involves? The current fees produce £450 million out of a £9 billion budget—about 5 per cent. The debate is not about the small amounts of extra finance, which would be rather slow to come, or the expansion of opportunities for working-class students; it is about marketisation. Why cannot we be frank about that?

Because it is not about marketisation—it is about getting rid of up-front fees, reintroducing a maintenance grant of £1,500 and making it easier for graduates to repay not just any fee, but their loans. The amount that they will pay back goes down substantially under our proposals. [Interruption.] It goes down £18,000 a year—from £13.85 a week to £5.90. That is the reality of our proposals.

I do not think that any of us, on this side of the House at least, is surprised that the Government are breaking their promise. What we would like explained is why they made the promise in the first place.

That is a change of tack. The hon. Gentleman is a respected member of the Education and Skills Committee, which to a large extent goes along with our proposals and certainly supports graduate contributions. There was an interesting article in The Sunday Times by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—

Answer!

This is the answer, if the hon. Lady cares to wait.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the removal of the up-front element in the proposal before us will have a significant impact to the benefit of the students coming from poorer families?

That is a crucial point. Even though 40 per cent. of students did not have to pay that fee, there was the impression in youngsters' minds that if they want to go to university it will cost them or their parents money up front. The other interesting point is that from the student income and expenditure survey we now know that 26 per cent. of students are themselves paying an average of £700 towards that up-front fee. In fact, abolition and a move to an income-contingent repayment system after they have graduated is not only more helpful for those applying to university, but will help students to manage the cost of being at university.

The Minister referred in his opening answer to meetings with Members of the House. How many of those meetings were held at the suggestion of Lords Commissioners to the Treasury—in other words, Government Whips?

Quite a few would be the answer to that. That in no way suggests, however, that those individual Members whom I met were not delighted and happy to meet me.

What steps he is taking to improve links between schools and sports clubs. [147872]

From parliamentary sports to schools sports, Mr. Speaker, we are implementing a range of measures to improve the links between schools and sports clubs. With an investment of more than £1 billion, we are enhancing sports facilities, creating 400 specialist sports colleges, funding partnerships between schools to increase sporting opportunities for children, and making money available to encourage links between schools and sports clubs.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. To put this subject in context, about 20 per cent. of school leavers in this country continue their sport with a sports club; in France, that figure is about 70 per cent. I am therefore delighted about the investment. Will she talk to colleagues in other Departments—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—so that we can have a co-ordinated approach to this matter?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing to encourage not just sports in schools but young people to carry on their sporting activity beyond school. I assure him that in this area of policy, as in many others, we work extremely closely not just with colleagues in DCMS but with colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office.

In the light of the Minister's encouraging reply, will she consider the application made by St. Bede's high school in my constituency for a specialists sports facility? It is the only high school of its type without a sports facility and it wishes to link with local sporting clubs, thus achieving the Minister's objective. Will she assure me that she will consider carefully that application, which is supported by the county council and is much needed?

I am delighted to note the right hon. Gentleman's support for our specialist schools programme. I hope that he acknowledges, as we do, that they raise achievement among children—[Interruption.] In response to the comment made from a sedentary position, the Conservatives may have had the spark of an idea, but we provided the funds that they now intend to cut.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has had the opportunity to read the Adjournment debate on grass roots sports that we had on Tuesday. She will realise that to increase mass participation right across the age range, especially as people get older, the school-club link is crucial as there is a drop-off rate, particularly among girls and women. Will she work closely with the DCMS and others to ensure that as well as having specialist sports colleges and sports co-ordinators, we get coaches into schools through those links, possibly even in after-school hours? We must make sure that we use the facilities in schools and make a real effort to drive up the participation rate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the Adjournment debate the other night, and I agree entirely that creating those school-club links, across the range of sports, is crucial. Not only do I hope that the school-club links project in which we are investing £4.5 million will support that, but that our extended schools programme, in which we hope to open up schools to provide extra-curricular activities, will encourage more coaches from clubs to work with children and young people to develop their sports competences.

In encouraging sports pros to come into schools, to try to alleviate the problem about which we are all worried—obesity in our youngsters—and to get those young people off their couches and on to sports fields and facilities, will the Minister examine carefully the problem of the long school summer holidays? In terms of opening up those sports facilities, the schools tell us that part of the problem is insurance: they are afraid that youngsters will get injured while using the facilities. Will she consider opening those facilities this summer for all our youngsters?

I am delighted that there is cross-party agreement on this matter. I have always believed—and I imagine from what the hon. Gentleman said that he agrees—that schools and their facilities are a most precious asset in our communities and are valued by everybody. For them to be closed for much of the day and much of the year is a terrible waste of a valuable asset. Any step that we can take to open them up so that they can he used not just by the school community but by the wider community must be of benefit to all.

What assessment he has made of the impact of education maintenance grants on post-16 participation. [147873]

In the evaluated pilots, the number of 16-year-olds participating in full-time education increased by 5.9 percentage points. That represents a significant increase, and reinforces the importance of extending education maintenance allowances to 16-year-olds in all parts of England from this September.

I welcome that reply—and I do not normally say that.

One of the proposals in the skills strategy that we launched in the summer is to allow young people in full-time education beyond the age of 19 access to maintenance grants. That will give them a new opportunity. However, we will also try to ensure that all learner support funds are used to support young people, raise their aspirations and enable them to stay in education—especially those from communities in which that is not currently the norm.

Given that those who stay in education after the age of 16 earn more in later life than those who do not, would it not be consistent with the Government's other policies for them to charge fees for their education rather than giving them money?

No, it most certainly would not. Let us consider the logical conclusion of the Conservatives' higher education policy. They would tell 16-year-olds "Take an education maintenance allowance, but you cannot have a university place." The Conservatives would reduce the number of places significantly, and which young people would lose out? Those who were eligible for the allowances.

I welcome the rolling out of maintenance allowances across the country to regions such as mine, but will the Minister ensure that his AimHigher programme continues to be funded? I have seen it operating in schools in my constituency, encouraging young people in years 9 and 10 who would otherwise not even have thought of going to university to begin planning their school careers with that in mind.

I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue that programme, which has been very successful in persuading young people that higher education is a serious option when it has not been on their radar screens hitherto. The combination of our investment in Sure Start, our school standards agenda, the work of the Connexions service and our proposed reforms of education for 14 to 19-year-olds is helping young people to fulfil their potential in a way that has not been possible before.

With the maintenance allowance, the Government have established the principle of using taxpayers' money to encourage students to go on learning, thus gaining wider career opportunities and greater earning potential. Can the Minister explain how that policy is consistent with that of variable tuition fees, which is predicated on substantial student debt, with students having to repay money because of the possibility of those wider career opportunities and greater earning potential?

The hon. Gentleman has clearly taken advantage of the literacy programme, but not of the numeracy programme. As a consequence of the proposals presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last week, the reintroduction of a maintenance grant to support young people while they are undertaking higher education is entirely consistent with education maintenance allowances. If the Higher Education Bill were voted down, what the Conservatives would be voting for would be no maintenance grants and the continuation of up-front fees.

I welcome the maintenance allowances that reached Bristol in the roll-out programme this September. Does the Minister agree that such direct funding on an income-related basis encourages more young people from low-income families to consider going to university?

I agree entirely. The important thing about increasing access to university is enabling far more young people to gain the necessary qualifications by the age of 18 and getting them to believe that university is a serious option. That is how we will widen participation and genuinely ensure that higher education is available to all who want and are able to pursue it in our country.

When he next expects to meet representatives of local education authorities from Norfolk and Suffolk to discuss school budgets for the next financial year. [147874]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets representatives from Norfolk on a regular basis. This year's package of funding includes a targeted transitional grant made available to local authorities, which would otherwise have the smallest increases in support for education over this year and next. Norfolk is eligible for £5.3 million and Suffolk for £3.1 million.

Has the Minister had a chance to see the recent article by Steve Downes, the education correspondent of the Eastern Daily Press, who flagged up the possibility of £400 million being necessary to repair and upgrade Norfolk schools, given that one in nine classrooms in the county is below the accepted standard? He will also be aware that I am very concerned about the reorganisation in the Hunstanton area, which will require an upgrade. We are very grateful that Norfolk will benefit from a substantial private finance initiative project, but what is our share of "Building schools for the future" likely to be?

I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman asked that question. I follow Steve Downes's articles in the Eastern Daily Press carefully—especially when the hon. Gentleman shows them to me just before Question Time. I am glad that he referred to the increased capital funding for Norfolk. The "Building schools for the future" programme is designed to enable every local education authority in the country to modernise the secondary school estate over the next 10 to 15 years. The funds will be distributed on the basis of need, the power of the educational vision to deliver on improved standards, and the capacity of the LEA to deliver the programme. We are waiting for the bids to come in, and the moneys will be allocated on that basis.

May I ask my hon. Friend not to listen to what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said about school buildings in his county? I taught in Norfolk for 10 years before entering the House in 1997. I can tell my hon. Friend that many of the schools then were rotten and had leaking roofs; that many of the children were taught in sheds called "mobile classrooms", except they never moved; that the Tory county council was proud of how little it spent on education under a Tory Government; and that there has been huge extra investment since 1997 in Norfolk and Suffolk. The hon. Gentleman's point was completely wrong, and the remaining defective buildings are remnants from the dark days of the Tory era.

I am glad that my non-aggression pact with the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) can now be abandoned and that I can make it absolutely clear that capital funding, which was a mere £4.9 million for the whole of Norfolk in 1996–97, is now £39.7 million. That puts right the dark days that were left to us.

Is the Minister confident that the transitional target money to which he referred in his answer will help all the schools that set either a deficit budget or used reserves or money for capital projects to balance the books this year, or will we hear more from schools in East Anglia about teachers being laid off and staff being cut?

What we will hear more of is the Conservative lead spokesman on education in Norfolk county council, who says that the money to which the hon. Gentleman referred will replace the funding that was missing last year. In fact, he went on:

"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."

What percentage of young people from England and Wales gained entrance to courses at the Russell Group of universities in 2003.[147875]

Come in No. 10.

Your time is up. [Laughter.]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. He knows that I told his Parliamentary Private Secretary that I have been speaking to vice-chancellors from Russell Group universities—though not Oxford or Cambridge, I might add. They told me that they would charge£3,000 for every course at their universities and also told me that they would support a fixed universal graduate repayment scheme, if it were proposed, but that they had been told that they must support the Government's variable scheme or get nothing. Surely my right hon. Friend sees the merit in further exploring a fixed graduate repayment scheme, which would stop misleading students about what it would cost them to attend university courses and stop the Government bullying the universities. It might even save the seats of several Labour Members at the next election.

I should tell my hon. Friend, who is a friend of long standing, that I simply do not understand that argument. According to it, were we to fix the fee at £2,500—the accepted figure in terms of bringing in the same amount of revenue—all our problems would dissolve overnight. The idea is that poorer youngsters would be put off by £3,000, but not by £2,500. The simple fact is that none of the Russell Group universities will be able to charge anything above £1,125, which is the current standard fee, unless they satisfy the access regulator that they are doing everything they possibly can to encourage youngsters from non-traditional backgrounds—to use the jargon—to come to their university. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, Cambridge has already responded with an incredible £4,000 per year grant for youngsters whose families have an income of up to £31,000 a year. That is on top of the £2,700 we are providing centrally.

If we are to accept the Government's premise that graduates, particularly from prestigious universities, should pay back more to society for their university education, why should that principle apply only to new graduates? Why should it not also apply to former, high-earning graduates, particularly those earning more than £100,000 a year? Almost 90 per cent. of such high-earners are graduates, who acquired their degrees in the days when they were more exclusive and more financially remunerative.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Dearing report—a national committee of inquiry that was comprehensive, greatly appreciated at the time, and supported by Members on both sides of the House. Dearing set out six arguments as to why a graduate contribution scheme, which is what we are suggesting, is superior to a graduate tax, not least because he foresaw the difficulty of applying legislation retrospectively. However, he did point out that we need a culture in which individuals who have benefited from higher education are more willing to put money back in, in endowments and other forms. So I invite any Member of this House who feels a sense of guilt at not having paid enough for their university education to send their former university money. That would be very much appreciated.

What support he gives to local education authorities which face a shortfall in insurance payments to cover the cost of the replacement of school buildings after fire damage. [147876]

Authorities and schools are expected to take out adequate insurance for their school buildings, in accordance with good practice. Significant capital resources are allocated by formula to all authorities, enabling them to respond to the needs of their schools according to their priorities, including the covering of emergencies. Therefore, we generally do not provide exceptional capital support to local authorities to meet the costs of fire damage.

My question comes about as a result of the experiences of Brigshaw high school, which is in my constituency. At Christmas, the gymnasium block burned down—I am glad to say that it was an accident—but in April 2000 virtually the entire school burned down. The Government and Leeds city council came together efficiently to ensure that the building work, costing some £8 million, went ahead. Under the leadership of their head teacher, Peter Laurence, the staff responded brilliantly to the crisis. Will the Minister assure me that he will give the school the same help and support through this current difficult period?

I am aware of the tragic circumstances at Brigshaw high school that my hon. Friend describes. I am certainly happy to give him a commitment that we will work with Education Leeds to ensure that the school can be rebuilt as soon as possible; I know that considerable damage has been caused on this occasion. Our preference is very much that these matters be dealt with at local level. We have increased fivefold the availability of capital funds to local authorities in the past six years. We hope that, in the first place, Education Leeds will work closely with the school and with my hon. Friend to bring about its rebuilding.

While we are on the subject of support to local education authorities, given that an LEA thinks that it is doing well if 87 per cent. of its budget is passed on to schools and only 13 per cent. kept back, which in the case of Norfolk still means that more than £50 million is kept back—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has wasted a supplementary; the question is about insurance.

In view of the huge chaos caused by fires in schools and especially in the light of the fact that the cost of fitting sprinklers and other fire protection systems can be greatly offset against the reduction in insurance premiums, should we not make it mandatory, or give strong encouragement, for all schools, in new build and in retrospect, to fit sprinkler systems?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I give him an undertaking that I shall explore what the Department can do to support such common-sense solutions.

If she will review family court cases that involved evidence from Professor Sir Roy Meadow. [147843]

I have met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children to discuss family law cases involving evidence from Sir Roy Meadow. We await the written judgment of the Court of Appeal in the Angela Cannings case, which we expect within a fortnight, and when we receive that judgment I shall tell the House what action we shall take on criminal cases, and my right hon. Friend will tell the House what action she will take on family cases, that involved evidence from Sir Roy Meadow.

Professor Meadow's flawed evidence was instrumental in two massive miscarriages of justice, in the case of my constituent, Sally Clark, and in the Angela Cannings case, and was also instrumental in the collapse of the conviction of Trupti Patel. All those cases aroused massive public interest. Will the Solicitor-General confirm that she has still not actually started to review criminal cases where Professor Meadow's evidence was instrumental, and will she also confirm, perhaps on behalf of the Minister for Children, that there has as yet been no attempt to review all the family court cases? In those cases, too, there may have been great miscarriages of justice—children may have been taken away from parents and families broken apart—because of the same kind of evidence from Professor Meadow.

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify different cases, different issues in different cases and different jurisdictions—criminal and family. I recognise both his interest in such cases and also that of other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) with whom I know he has discussed the matter.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Sir Roy Meadow cases throw up disturbing indications that expert witnesses are not always as expert as they should be? Does she also agree that witnesses who give expert advice to the courts should be registered with the Council for the Registration of Forensic Practitioners?

The Home Office has responsibility for forensic pathology, which is often at issue in cases such as this. In the Angela Cannings case, the Court of Appeal gave a verbal decision to free her, and made it clear that it was concerned about expert witnesses. We expect the court's written judgment shortly, but at present we do not know whether it will open up the whole issue of expert evidence in cases that otherwise might have been regarded as involving sudden infant death syndrome, or whether it will keep its conclusions in respect of Sir Roy Meadow. How wide our action is will depend on the court's findings, but we are working with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children to ensure that no stone is left unturned in this matter. I shall be happy to meet the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) and any other colleagues to keep them abreast of progress in these very important cases.

I am pleased to hear what the Solicitor-General has to say about this matter, but I want to press her a little further. I appreciate that her Department's responsibility in respect of family court cases is very different from its responsibility in respect of criminal cases. Nevertheless, the view taken by the Attorney-General and the right hon. and learned Lady of what has happened in criminal cases is likely to have a marked impact on whether people who have had their children taken away can have their cases reviewed in the family court. It will also affect the amount of public aid that might be made available to those people in order to have their cases re-examined. Will the right hon. and learned Lady bear those points in mind and ensure that the advice of the Law Officers is given to the Minister for Children and to the Lord Chancellor's Department if it is concluded that there are serious flaws in the expert evidence that has been advanced?

It is already clear that serious flaws exist, and that is why we are taking the action that we are taking. I have met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children already, and the Attorney-General is in correspondence with her. I do not want to trespass on my right hon. Friend's jurisdiction in this matter, but a particular difficulty exists: that is, that many cases will not have come to court, as the expert evidence and advice might have been that a person did not stand a cat in hell's chance because the evidence was overwhelming. The advice might also be that giving up one child for adoption might mean that the person involved could keep her other children. The matter might seem straightforward, but it is very difficult to track back in these cases. However, I assure the House that all efforts will be made, across both the criminal and civil jurisdictions, and that I shall keep hon. Members informed.

What plans she has to improve ways in which firms can be protected from fraud. [147844]

The Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office are engaged in the work across government of the criminal justice agencies to improve the protection of firms against fraud.

The Solicitor-General and I have corresponded on this matter. I am grateful to her for taking seriously the issue of fraud suffered by small firms, but more needs to be done. Does she agree that it would make sense if the SFO's main advisory panel contained a small firms representative? I appreciate that she may not know the exact answer, but can she tell the House how many stop now orders have been issued by the Office of Fair Trading?

I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman with a response to his question about the OFT. I shall consider including a small business representative on the SFO advisory panel, but I agree that more needs to be done to protect businesses, both large and small, against fraud. That is a matter of ensuring that Government Departments and agencies work together. We intend to make sure that that happens, but we must also work with business to ensure that everything possible is done to advise and inform firms about how to protect themselves against fraud. We are also working with the Law Society and the professional accountancy organisations, and we are working internationally as well. We aim to toughen up on the proceeds of crime so that fraudsters do not think that they can commit a crime and live off the proceeds.

I wish to draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend to a case in my constituency, in which a small firm was able to produce what I thought was very substantial evidence of fraud by a company in Hampshire. My conversations with the local police in Hampshire have revealed that the main difficulty about pursuing the matter was the lack of available resources, and also that dealing with small-business fraud is given a relatively low priority in local police forces. Is not that a critical part of this picture?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of the amount of resources that the tackling of fraud is able to command. Fraud is not just a technical, victimless crime—there are real casualties along the way in terms of people's jobs, finances and, often, homes. I ask my hon. Friend to bring the case to my attention and I shall look into it.

What discussions the Attorney-General has had with the Attorney-General of the United States on the subject of the amicus brief prepared on behalf of parliamentarians in the matter of Rasul et al v. Bush. [147845]

The Attorney-General has not discussed the proposed amicus brief in the case of Rasul et al v. Bush as part of his discussions with the US authorities about the UK detainees in Guanatamo Bay.

That is very disappointing, particularly given that it has been supported by four former Law Lords, a former Master of the Rolls and 85 right hon. and hon. Members of this House, including three former Cabinet Ministers and, indeed, the right hon. and learned Lady's predecessor. One wonders why the Government have not involved themselves in some action on behalf of British citizens who are incorrectly imprisoned.

The Attorney-General and I are being kept informed about the proposed amicus that is being prepared by the peers and hon. Members, including my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

"I hope that we will shortly be able to tell the House how the issue will be handled".—[Official Report, 7 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 253.]

"I think it will be resolved one way or another in the next few weeks".