What plans there are to increase access to higher education in west Cumbria. [187694]

I begin by paying tribute to an absentee this morning—the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). During a tremendous process of reform that was fully debated in the House, he carried out an outstanding stewardship of his office with wit, friendship and courage. I pay tribute to his work, and he deserves his promotion most richly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. As he knows, west Cumbria has particular problems. Will he take a personal interest in the implementation of the Fender report? Widening access to higher education in west Cumbria is vital to the social and economic regeneration of that area.

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I pay tribute to his work in the House and outside, campaigning for a university in Cumbria. It is the right project, it will benefit the whole of the county, and I will certainly take a personal interest in the issues, as he requests.

If he will make a statement on the performance of specialist schools. [187695]

There are now 1,950 specialist schools in England. In 2003 the percentage of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs or GNVQs at grades A to C was 56.7 per cent. in specialist schools, compared with 49.2 per cent. in maintained, mainstream non-specialist schools. Our value-added performance data for key stages 3 and 4 was also higher in specialist schools compared with non-specialist schools. Full data for specialist schools' GCSE performance in 2004 will be published as a statistical first release in October.

Will my hon. Friend recognise the achievement of Hainault Forest high school, the local comprehensive that my daughters attended, in winning specialist school status in business and enterprise? From being in special measures since last December, it has now attained its best ever SATs results. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating head teacher Ian Wetherell and his team and wish them the success of other specialist schools in achieving their promise, with the increased investment that the Government have put into education?

I am delighted to do so. I wrote to Mr. Wetherell in June and July, and it is fantastic that his good work and that of his staff is reflected in the results. I hope that the whole House will join us in saying that the GCSE, age 14 and age 11 results, which all showed progress in the right direction, are a tribute to good teaching in our schools. That progress is fastest in some of our toughest areas and historically weaker schools and is cause for celebration.

Liberal Democrat Members congratulate not only the specialist schools, but all schools and further education colleges both on the outstanding GCSE, A and AS level results and on the vocational results, which are often not mentioned in this House or elsewhere. Does the Minister agree that the extra £500,000 that specialist schools receive enables them to do two key things: first, to lower class sizes; secondly, to recruit and retain high quality specialist teachers? Since the Government came to power in 1997, 375,000 more secondary school students are being taught in classes of more than 30. Given that many non-specialist schools struggle to provide teachers, that one in five teachers is now recruited from abroad and that key subjects such as literacy, numeracy, maths, English and science are taught by non-specialist staff in many non-specialist schools, when will the Minister get a grip on teacher recruitment?

Order. That is enough.

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question—I think it was a question—I am, of course, happy to associate myself with his remarks. When I used those words previously, however, he described them as "baloney", so I am glad that he has changed his opinion and is willing to congratulate the schools. Teacher recruitment and teacher retention have never been better in this country. Our specialist and non-specialist schools now employ 28,000 more teachers; primary school teacher recruitment is up; secondary school teacher retention is up; and maths and science teacher retention and recruitment are up too. The hon. Gentleman would do better to join the consensus rather than trying to stand outside it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that specialist schools are the most important Government policy for secondary schools? As such, it is important that we monitor it, evaluate it and get the basics right. Many educational researchers in this country, who have been hit hard by the Government's changes to research funding, are worried that they will not be able to track the success or performance of specialist schools because of the cuts in funding to their departments? Will he talk to the British Educational Research Association, which recently came to see me as Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee to express its concerns?

I am happy to examine the points raised by the BERA. My primary responsibility is to teachers and, above all, pupils in schools, but the fact that the specialist schools programme has increased from 100 schools in 1997 to nearly 2,000 schools today means that the research base is outstanding. As we move forward with the Government's five-year strategy, by which every school in the country will become a specialist school, we will have a full test bed to see how that work goes. The ground for researchers is fertile, and I hope that they will add to the existing research to show the success of the specialist schools movement.

The town of Taunton contains five secondary schools, every single one of which is a specialist school. Two of those schools are heavily and annually over-subscribed, and the local education authority has implemented a strict zoning policy, which means that some pupils from one side of town who show aptitude cannot get into a specialist school to help them with that aptitude. Is that fair and just?

I am delighted to hear that pupils in Taunton are benefiting from the Government's education policies. Allocating pupils to schools according to distance is objective, independent and fair, and it commands confidence. In contrast, the Conservative policy to abolish the right of schools or LEAs to use distance as a criterion in determining admissions would take us backwards. Over the next eight or nine months, many discussions will occur around the country on whether it is sensible to abolish the right of LEAs and schools to use the independent and objective criterion of distance from a school to govern admission. If one believes in community schools, how can one believe in abolishing the right of those schools and LEAs to use distance as the basis for admission?

Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Wardle high school, which was opened as a specialist arts college by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Monday? Further to that, will he note that one of the boroughs with the most improved exam result statistics was Rochdale borough, and add congratulations from the Front Bench to our congratulations locally on one of the most improved boroughs in the country?

Of course I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the teachers, the pupils and the local education authority in Rochdale. As a high-performing and fast-improving local authority I hope that it will receive a letter from me congratulating it on its performance, but I am sure that the appearance of my right hon. Friend on Monday will have given those people a boost that a letter from me could not hope to match.

My hon. Friend will know that I have a number of specialist schools in my constituency. One of the great aspects of these schools is the fact that they are opening their doors to the general public. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that the investment that is placed in them equally benefits the community within which they appear?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the chance to deal with that, because in my excitement at the question by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) I forgot to point out to him that the extra money that goes to specialist schools is not intended only for the pupils in those schools, but to build key links with six partner primary schools and another secondary school, and to open up opportunities to the adult community. It is a requirement on every specialist school that it not only does right by its own pupils, but by the wider community of adults and pupils. I have been in touch with my hon. Friend about how schools in her constituency can fulfil that aspiration for the specialist schools movement, which is designed to bring wider opportunity right across an area, not just to individual schools. That is something that we are pursuing very hard.

How often the (a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Coventry, South are monitored for health and safety standards. [187696]

Like all local education authorities, Coventry LEA has health and safety responsibility for its secondary and primary schools. It formally audits its schools' compliance with the law and routinely provides advice. It considers and acts on returns made to the health and safety team. In 2000, Ofsted reported that the LEA had a clearly defined health and safety policy monitored by members and officers.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but can she say how Coventry compares with the rest of the country on health and safety matters?

I do not have that comparison here, but I am sure that Coventry LEA, like all other LEAs, does extremely well in ensuring the health and safety of its staff and pupils in all its schools.

If he will make a statement on the national literacy strategy. [187697]

The introduction of the national literacy strategy in 1998 has brought about dramatic improvements in standards across the ability range. This year, a record 77 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 in English. Compared with 1997, there are now around 84,000 more 11-year-olds achieving the expected level for their age in English.

But is it not a disgrace that 17 per cent. of all 11-year-olds—nearly one in five—are going to secondary school unable to read properly after six years in primary schools, and that 37 per cent. are going to secondary school unable to write properly? Does the Minister accept that the problem lies in the way in which reading is taught in our schools and the way in which the national literacy strategy has been implemented, with too much emphasis on whole language teaching methods and not enough concentration on phonics? Does he accept that it is the role of education Ministers, whether Conservative or Labour, to challenge the teacher training colleges and the profession over this clearly failed methodology, rather than simply to say that this is a matter for the profession?

I totally accept the hon. Gentleman's point and would like to put on record a tribute to him for the campaigning efforts that he has undertaken on the question of phonics. We have placed phonics at the centre of the literacy strategy, and in this academic year we are providing new training about phonics for teachers in key stages 1 and 2. That challenge needs to be there alongside the other changes that are necessary to ensure that we continue to build on the progress that I described.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Rosewood school in Burnley, which he visited earlier this year, is an example of a new primary school showing what is being done throughout Burnley as a result of this Government's policies, which are, through the literacy strategy and in many other ways, delivering much better education than under the previous Tory Government?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. It is worth reminding hon. Members that, when we came to power in 1997, only 63 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved the expected level in English—in other words, 37 per cent. went to secondary school without achieving it. The 14-point growth constitutes remarkable progress. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. I greatly enjoyed my visit to the school and I am delighted that Burnley is now part of wave one of the building schools for the future programme. That means that its secondary as well as its primary schools can be renewed.

In the Under-Secretary's reply, he said that 77 per cent. of children achieved level 4 or above this year. Does he accept that the original target was 85 per cent.? It has slipped to 2006. Is he confident that the target will be reached then? Will it slip again or become simply an aspiration?

We have made it absolutely clear that 85 per cent. remains our target. We will do everything that we can to ensure that this year's improvement, about which I was delighted, continues.

How many university access agreements have been agreed; and if he will make a statement. [1876981]

We expect that institutions will start to submit their access agreements for the approval of the director of fair access later this autumn.

I recently received a letter from a college in my constituency, which raised concerns about a recommendation by the Learning and Skills Council to increase tuition fees for access and professional courses. That will affect my constituents, especially young people. The courses offer many of my constituents a second chance to enter higher education. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the courses will remain affordable?

I think that I can offer that reassurance but I shall examine the specific case that my hon. Friend raised and write to him about the detail of the Learning and Skills Council's proposals. I am not familiar with the details that he mentioned but I am happy to consider them and come back to him.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the impact on access to higher education of the alternative funding plans that the Conservative party published yesterday, especially—

Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman previously that it is not for the Secretary of State to answer such questions. The hon. Gentleman can always write to Conservative party headquarters.

While the Secretary of State could be forgiven, at least in my opinion, a certain impatience with the Scots, does he acknowledge that there is a delicate problem of access, especially to the university of Edinburgh, given the different regimes for tuition fees? Has that been considered in the Department and is it in contact with the Scottish Executive on that awkward matter?

Mr. Speaker, I have no impatience with the Scots, especially your good self, on any matter.

If he will make a statement on the proportion of 18 to 20-year-olds applying for higher education entry this year. [187699]

What the latest figures are for higher education applications; and if he will make a statement. [187700]

The latest figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service at the beginning of the month showed that 466,222 people had applied through the UCAS system to UK universities and colleges for 2004 entry. That represents an increase of 2.8 per cent. on the same time last year. The number of people accepted so far represents an increase of 3.4 per cent.

Does the Minister accept, as the Prime Minister did in his letter to me of 6 August, that over the past year the percentage increase in the number of English student applicants under 21 has fallen as compared to the increase in the cohort of that age group? Can he give any reason for that—as the Prime Minister did not—other than the one I suggested: that people were being put off by the top-up fees with which they are now threatened? Does he agree that if there is a fear putting people off applying to university, an increase in the interest rate to a commercial rate would only make the position far worse?

I only agree with the last point. The hon. Gentleman should actually be celebrating the fact that, year on year, an increasing number of young people in this country want to go to university. The real scandal is that Liberal Democrats want to scaremonger, and imply to young people—especially those in low-income families—that university education is somehow unaffordable. That approach will not work, and is not working, for a number of simple reasons: rising school standards, improving GCSE and A-level results, educational maintenance allowances and Aimhigher, as well as the growing confidence and aspirations of hard-working families.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement, which shows that the Government are committed to getting more young people into higher education. That is essential for the country's economic future.

I entirely agree. It is important for us to engage employers in inspiring and enthusing young people about science. We have made it absolutely clear that we intend to implement the Smith inquiry's recommendations. As my hon. Friend knows, there are no quick-fix solutions, but we think it is essential to apply our strategy to inspire young people about maths and physics early in their school careers.

Is not the system that the Government are introducing placing substantial extra costs and indebtedness on families with quite modest means? Should we not consider the effects of it? Whether or not there is an effect on the number of people applying to universities, will the system not result in years of extra indebtedness for young people from modest backgrounds? Whatever else may be the case, is it not a fact that the Government hardly led those people to expect this at the last general election?

It was the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a former higher education Minister, who described the policies announced this week by the Conservative party as regressive—almost as regressive as the return of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to the Shadow Cabinet.

Order. I will stop the Minister.

May I begin by associating myself with the Secretary of State's earlier remarks about the right hon. Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)? He has been a good-humoured opponent and we wish him well in his new role.

I can explain. None of the young people at university or in the labour market today benefited from this Government's literacy and numeracy strategy in primary schools, none benefited from the key stage 3 strategy in secondary schools, and none benefited from the 14 to 19 reforms that are already under way. But all experienced cuts, cuts and more cuts to school budgets, and neglect of the most disadvantaged in our communities. Nor was there a programme for the millions of adults in this country who lack basic numeracy and literacy skills. I am pleased to report to the House today that 750,000 of the adults who did not have such qualifications before this Government came to power have now achieved them. Those are the dividing lines on which we will campaign on the doorstep at the general election.

What recent representations he has received on schools admissions policy; and if he will make a statement. [187701]

The Education and Skills Select Committee has recently published a report into secondary school admission arrangements. It is under consideration and we will issue our response in due course.

Is the Minister not embarrassed at the fact that appeals by parents who did not secure their first choice of school for their children against such decisions have recently risen by 50 per cent.? Does he not agree that it should be left to head teachers, governors and parents to decide which school should accept which child?

If I understand the hon. Lady correctly, she is suggesting that every school in the country should have its own admissions policy, with no possibility of appeal against it. Indeed, that is a further development. Last term, we heard that the Conservative party believes that there should be no distance criterion for admission to schools; that would throw into chaos the whole admissions system. Now, the hon. Lady says that every school should be able to invent its own admissions policy without an appeal system; that would be much worse than the current system. The latest research shows that approximately nine out of 10 youngsters get their first choice, and the best way to increase that number is to have more good schools. I would have expected the hon. Lady to applaud the rising attainment levels, especially in previously weak schools that have struggled to get first choice preferences. That is what this Government have pledged to do.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, as evidence from the Education and Skills Committee shows, appeals processes and admissions systems work most smoothly when there is a single, local authority-based admissions authority? So rather than prescribing myriad different admissions authorities, we should consider the Committee's evidence, which shows that when there is a single admissions authority, everyone, including parents, understands the rules. Such a system creates fairness and leaves parents feeling more satisfied than the alternative, which leads to great frustration.

I was able to discuss this issue with the Education and Skills Committee when it questioned me in July. It is important to note that the co-ordinated admissions system that is being introduced means that no longer will parents send different forms to different schools in different authorities; rather, there will be a single admissions process. Schools will continue to have rights over their admissions where appropriate—Church schools are an example—but there will be a co-ordinated process. Early evidence from the work in Enfield and elsewhere shows that a co-ordinated admissions process makes a big difference to the satisfaction felt by parents, and brings greater clarity to the system. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that.

Has the Minister noted the conclusions of recent research showing that very bright pupils will do well in any secondary school, whether grammar or comprehensive, but that children at the margins—those who have only just passed the 11-plus—achieve considerably more in grammar schools than their equivalent cohorts in comprehensive schools? Does the Minister believe that there are any lessons to be learned about the ethos of those schools and the sort of teaching carried out in them, and will he learn some of those lessons and apply them to the whole of the secondary sector?

There are some lessons to be learned from the evidence. Unfortunately, we disagree about what those lessons are. On this side of the House, we do not believe that selection at five and 11 provides the right way forward. Conservative Members are proposing that every school, primary and secondary, should be able to have its own selection criteria for admissions, but we do not believe, as I said, that having a five-plus or an 11-plus is the best way forward for this country. Over the past 30 years, since the introduction of mass comprehensive schooling, there has been a doubling of GCSE performance, especially among girls. I would have thought that that would be a source of pride and, indeed, a source of evidence that the hon. Lady should take into account.

Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of admissions interviews in denominational schools? Such interviews not only enable schools to assess the credibility of references, but have a pastoral benefit in enabling those schools that wish to continue with interviews to gain a better understanding of the child's needs and personal circumstances. Under the co-ordinated system, schools have to rely solely on the local education authority to relay information to parents about the ethos of each school, how it differs from other schools and whether it offers what they want for their child. With the banning of admissions interviews, that valuable link between schools and prospective parents and pupils has been lost.

The House really needs to understand the extraordinary spectacle that we are seeing this morning. The hon. Lady has divorced her party from the position of the Churches on this issue. Both the Church of England and the Catholic Education Service made strong representations that the old mechanisms were not the right ones to use and that the testing of religious affiliation should not be done by interview, but on an objective basis. I am very sorry that the hon. Lady has decided that now is the time for a split between her position and that of the Churches on this matter. We have followed the strong representations made by the Churches and introduced an objective approach—not based on an interview. The hon. Lady would do well to follow the Churches and us in that respect.

What assessment he has made of the effects on the current cohort of university students of the Higher Education Act 2004. [187702]

The current cohort of students will not pay the new variable fees, but will benefit from the abolition of up-front fees in 2006, from an improved system for student complaints and from better arrangements for research in arts and humanities. The current cohort of students will also benefit from the introduction of the higher education grant of up to £1,000 this year and from the increase in the repayment threshold to £15,000 in 2005.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I add that the current cohort of students will continue to benefit from the high standards offered by the university system in the UK. I hope that he will take the opportunity to congratulate Cambridge university on coming third in the world league of universities, as well as coming first in the world league of teaching excellence. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he publicises the changes and effects of the Higher Education Act 2004 for the present cohort of students, most of whom are completely oblivious to the advantages that it will bring?

First, I am happy to congratulate Cambridge university on its achievement. I took the opportunity of having a conversation with the vice-chancellor yesterday in which we discussed what had led to the university's great success. I am indeed happy to place on record my congratulations on its achievement. I also agree with my hon. Friend's point that publicity about the precise meaning of the changes as they affect each individual is very important, and it will continue to be important as people consider applying for university education in the future. We have a substantial programme of public information to get that across. It has already started to be rolled out, but will be rolled out more fully in order to meet the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

When the Higher Education Funding Council considers bids from universities to expand their student numbers, will it have regard to whether a particular institution meets the Government's access requirements? Will it give favoured consideration to high-performing universities, such as the university of York, that meet the Government's requirements on access to people from all walks of life?

I cannot commit myself on the university of York's bid, although before the recess my hon. Friend arranged for me to visit the university to discuss with senior people there the meaning of their bid. However, I can tell him that, when it makes such decisions, HEFC must take into full account the contribution made by particular universities to the policies on improving access to higher education that both it and the Government espouse.

My right hon. Friend will recall that, during the debate on the Higher Education Act 2004, we were on opposite sides of the argument about variable fees. However, we were on exactly the same side when it came to the importance of improving financial support for poorer students. Will he therefore remind the House why, in his reforms, he quite rightly ruled out charging a commercial rate of interest on student loans? Was it because that policy would have been regressive and unfair in its effects on poorer students and lower-earning graduates?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In 2002, for the benefit of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, we set out our detailed analysis of the impact of real rates of interest. Unlike the Opposition, we rejected the possibility of charging a commercial rate of interest on student loans. First, that was because we did not want people to be penalised if they decided on a career—for example, with a charity or a Church—that was low paid. We thought that ability to pay was important. Secondly, we did not want to penalise women who decided not to work for a period of time after university so that they could bring up a family, as they could find that they would be hit by a real rate of interest of 8 per cent. Thirdly, we did not want people to have to pay back up to £60,000 on a loan of £10,000, which is what a real interest rate of 8 per cent. would add up to.

If he will make a statement on progress in implementing his Department's response to the mathematics inquiry report published by Professor Adrian Smith. [187704]

Since publication of the Government response to the Smith inquiry on 28 June, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has begun work on curriculum and qualification reforms. The School Teachers Review Body has been asked to advise on pay for senior mathematics teachers. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have announced increased training bursaries, and that golden hello incentives for mathematics teachers will also be introduced.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. From what I have seen in schools across my constituency—in Newark, Retford, Tuxford and Southwell—it is clear that technical qualifications are falling off sharply, especially in maths. That is despite the excellence being achieved in many other fields. The Smith report suggests that there is a shortage of 3,500 specialist teachers. May I emphasise to the Minister how important it is that we get those specialist teachers into the classroom? In that way, children from north-east Nottinghamshire can take their places in the hi-tech industry that is springing up in that part of the world.

I completely share the hon. Gentleman's commitment to making that a priority. He will be pleased, as I am, that more youngsters did GCSE maths this year, and did well in it. That is an important building block for the future, as the Smith inquiry noted. He will be pleased also that there are now 152 specialist schools with a specialism in maths and computing. That is also important.

I congratulate the Government on being the first in generations to take mathematics education seriously. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are still suffering a hangover from the years of Tory neglect of mathematics education?

I am tempted to blame my grades in maths and further maths on the previous Government, but I might be pushing my luck a bit too far. I tried to take maths seriously at school, but found that it was not quite my forte. I hope that it can be a source of cross-party commitment that maths and technical studies are essential to the future of the country, and that the recruitment of teachers and the development of the right curricula are critical to that.

In what ways his Department is assisting schools to develop their sports facilities. [187705]

We are investing £686 million in school sports facilities in England. More than 3,000 schools are benefiting from those programmes. The Department is also supporting capital investment in schools of £4.5 billion this year and more than £5 billion in 2005—06, much of which will be directly allocated to local authorities and schools for them to address their priority needs, including sport facilities.

The Minister has indicated that substantial sums in capital funds are available for schools that wish to develop their sports facilities. Sadly, however, following an Ofsted recommendation, St. Bede's school in my constituency was unsuccessful in bidding for money under the targeted capital fund arrangements and, although it wishes to reapply under that scheme, it has been told that it cannot. Will the Minister look carefully at the school's case to see whether St. Bede's could reapply under the fund, or, if that route to capital funding is not available, can he recommend another route, given that the school has already raised £250,000 of its own money to put towards its much-needed sports facilities?

I am aware of the situation at St. Bede's. It received a good Ofsted report, and Ofsted made a recommendation about sports facilities. The target capital fund was heavily over-subscribed and the next round is also very highly subscribed. If St. Bede's is unsuccessful in that round, there will be a further round early next year. It may also be possible to secure a grant from the formulaic capital programme allocated through the Lancashire local education authority. It is possible that there could be scope for progress by St. Bede's under the building schools for the future programme. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman setting that out in detail.

Will my hon. Friend look at the success achieved in Amber Valley by developing the key sports facility of having hundreds of young people acting as sports leaders through the community sports programme, which is working with schools, Connexions and the Learning and Skills Council? Because that programme promotes sport and good health and also gives confidence to young people to be engaged in such activities, including their education, will he also consider the associated NEET programme, which brings in and re-engages in sports 16 to 19-year-olds who are "not in employment, education or training"?

I am happy to commend those programmes in my hon. Friend's Amber Valley constituency. She will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills launched the healthy living blueprint earlier this week, setting out some of the challenges for schools and the wider community in promoting healthy living. Good quality physical education and sport is at the heart of our efforts to ensure that children and young people have the healthiest lifestyles possible.

Does the Minister agree that it is not just sports facilities in school that are important, but how students are encouraged to use them in the wider community? Is he aware that in other European countries, particularly France and Holland, where there is a much higher involvement of young people in sport, sports facilities tend to be located in local clubs, rather than attached to schools, and are properly co-ordinated to bring a range of sports together on one site? What discussion is the Minister having with UK Sport and Sport England to ensure that sports facilities are developed in a way that will be of the greatest overall community benefit?

The hon. Gentleman raises a reasonable point. We work closely with our colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that our efforts are coherent. It works in both directions. It is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, about ensuring that we have facilities in the community for young people, but it is also about facilities in schools being accessible to the community outside traditional school hours, including for young people. We need to do both. A lot of money is going into that and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome those additional resources. We want to ensure that they have maximum impact on young people from all backgrounds in all our communities.

Does the Minister agree that the British state school system has traditionally undervalued the role of after-school competitive sport between schools, particularly its value in raising the self-esteem of young people who may lack confidence in the classroom? To ensure that we get maximum benefit from the new facilities that the Government are putting in, will he consider a proper system of rewarding teachers who take after-school or weekend sport and work with the governing bodies to get an extensive league structure for schools in all the main sports?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned on these issues for some time. Competitive sports are an important aspect of our work on physical education and sport in schools. I am happy to look into the specific suggestion that he has made today and to write to him. We have said that we want every school to be part of a school sports partnership by 2006. More than half are now in such partnerships, and competitive sports will be an important element in the work of those partnerships.

If the Attorney-General will act for the four UK citizens held in Guantanamo Bay in challenging the legality of their continued detention in the US courts. [187719]

No. Those holding the office of Attorney-General gave up the practice of acting as private counsel in the early 19th century. Since then, Law Officers' duties have been exclusively to act as advocates and legal advisers to the Crown. Government and Parliament.

This is very dispiriting indeed. We have four British citizens who have been in legal limbo for years now. Ten months after the Prime Minister said that the matter would be resolved soon, we are no further forward. It is just not satisfactory, and we need to do something about it. May I press my right hon. and learned Friend on this point? The Foreign Secretary has intervened on behalf of Kenny Richie, a British citizen who has been in prison in Ohio for the past 17 years. He is on death row for a crime that he says he did not commit and the British Government are standing behind him. Will the British Government do the same for the four British citizens in Guantanamo Bay?

We have strongly stood behind the rights of those detainees either to have a fair trial or be brought home. We have made that position clear. That is why the military commissions that were proposed by the US authorities in respect of those particular UK detainees have been suspended. I ask my hon. Friend to distinguish between whether, as he requests, the Attorney-General should represent those detainees in the habeas corpus applications and whether we are making all efforts to ensure that they either have a fair trial or are brought home. In addition the Foreign Office is considering a request by the detainees' representatives to put in an amicus brief at the hearings of the habeas corpus applications, and that is still under consideration.

I am glad it is under consideration, but when the original case was put before the US Supreme Court, it was supported by lawyers, Members of this Parliament and others, and the Government did not lift a finger to help. The fact is that the detainees are seeing a lawyer for the first time in two years. Their lawyer and Government officials are apparently not allowed to tell the detainees' families of the treatment that those detainees have received, which we believe to be similar to that handed out in the prison in Baghdad. The families have been told that the information cannot be divulged because of, variously, consular confidentiality or the Data Protection Act. Is it not the case that American justice is besmirched by this episode, and that there is a real danger that British justice is also besmirched by the fact that the British Government are prepared to allow this to happen to British citizens and will not lift a finger in their support?

It is not the case that we have not lifted a finger in support of the detainees; such has been the pressure of our representations that five of them have been returned. We have made clear our concerns about the circumstances in which the detainees have been held, including the question of legal advice and the fact of their detention. Discussions are under way. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he thinks that the detainees should either be brought back to this country or given a fair trial. We have said that a trial before a military commission is not one that we would consider fair. We are therefore pressing forward with arrangements for them to be returned home. I ask the House to understand the important efforts that have been made by the Attorney-General, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on behalf of those detained.

If the Solicitor-General will not agree to the proposition that the Attorney-General should represent the four detainees, what about seeking to persuade the American Government to accept an amicus before the military tribunal so as to ensure that the constitutional rights of the detainees are properly respected?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests an amicus brief before the military commission. We are not appearing in any form before the military commission, and nor are the detainees who are UK nationals, because we do not believe that the commission guarantees a fair trial. In respect of appearance before the district court in Washington DC, which is set to hear the applications for habeas corpus, an application has been made by the detainees' representatives for the UK to put in an amicus brief. As I have told the House, that is under consideration. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the problem is that I will not agree that we should represent the detainees. I would remind him that not since 1830, when there was a row about the Attorney-General and the Law Officers acting for private clients, have they acted for anyone other than the Crown, Parliament and the Government.

I wish to return to the important issue of the amicus brief in front of the district court. I appreciate that the Government are considering their position, but time is moving on. The question of possible representation on the amicus brief has been around for six or seven weeks, if not longer. When will the Government give us a definite lead on the matter? It is important, and many hon. Members will have been approached individually to lend their names to such a brief. On the basis of what the Government have said about the importance of observing proper constitutional proprieties in the United States, there would seem to be overwhelming reasons why it should be signed.

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that we give serious consideration to the question whether to proceed with an amicus brief. He is right that time is moving on, and we are acting as expeditiously as we can. Although the request was made some time ago for us to put in the brief, we did not receive the papers until recently. We will inform the House as soon as a decision has been made.

What discussions she has held with Cabinet colleagues on improving the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service deals with court cases involving domestic violence. [187720]

I am in continuous discussions with ministerial colleagues about improving the way in which the CPS deals with court cases involving domestic violence, principally through the interministerial group on domestic violence chaired by the Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. It will not surprise her to learn that, at a seminar I chaired for people working to support those facing domestic violence in Plymouth this time last year, one of the key concerns was the delays in bringing cases to court. It is vital to speed things up. Will she continue her drive to join up government to achieve that and will she remind Baroness Scotland, who will visit my constituency next week, of the importance of doing everything we can to do so?

I certainly will and I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done in her city of Plymouth on the issue of domestic violence, not least conducting a survey that has highlighted existing concerns. It is important that all the agencies work together and that cases are brought to court as swiftly as possible. However, protective orders should be made in the meantime, so that women can know that they and their children are safe before cases come to court.

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that on average two women are killed every week in this country by their spouse or partner. Indeed, in the Rhondda in the past two years, we have had five domestic murders. Is it not vital that the CPS acts as sensitively as possible as early as possible in cases of domestic violence, so that they do not lead to domestic murder?

It certainly is, and one of the objectives of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which is going through the House at present, is to enable early intervention. If early intervention does not take place, domestic violence can escalate and end up in homicide. In addition to early intervention, we have set up homicide reviews so that we learn the lessons when agencies have not been able to prevent homicides. The Law Commission has recently reported on homicides in cases of domestic violence, and we are considering what further action to take.

What steps she is taking to ensure consistency of decision making in prosecutions for corruption. [187721]

Consistency of decision making in prosecutions for corruption is ensured by the Crown Prosecution Service following the code for Crown prosecutors, which requires them to consider the sufficiency of evidence and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest, and, secondly, by the requirement in all cases of corruption that a Law Officer consent to the prosecution.

I understand that the common law offences of corruption and that of abuse of public office are more or less a dead letter and that it is very difficult to secure a successful prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916. Are Ministers looking at how effective that legislation is and at whether it should be more effective?

The hon. Gentleman puts his concerns well and we agree with those views. There are great difficulties in prosecuting and that is one of the reasons why the Government have been considering new laws on corruption. There has been pre-legislative scrutiny based on a draft Bill produced by the Law Commission in 1998, and in due course a new Bill will be brought forward to deal with the important issue of tackling corruption that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises.