1. What primary legislative changes will be required to create the new category of trust school and implement the other measures in the recent education White Paper. [31309]

Annex A to the White Paper sets out the legislative changes needed to implement trust schools and the other measures in the White Paper.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Her colleague in another place said that hardly any legislative changes were needed for trust schools. Is not that because these proposals have been watered down so that, in reality, trust schools are no different from foundation schools? Can the Secretary of State give me three specific differences between trust schools and the existing arrangements?

The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we are building on a model that is already out there—schools that can acquire a foundation. Voluntary-aided schools are a good example of that in practice, and there are many others. We propose to put safeguards into the Bill to ensure that external partners that want to get involved with schools are committed to raising educational standards, have charitable objectives, are able to avail themselves of the power to innovate, and have a duty to promote race relations and social cohesion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been hoist on their own hyperbole by talking rather carelessly about independent trust schools? The fact is that, as it says in the White Paper, they will be part of the family of local authority schools and will not have the independence that academies have. In many ways, the local authority relationship will be just as it has been in the past.

My hon. Friend, who has great knowledge of these matters, is right to say that under the new mechanism trust schools will be part of the local authority family of schools. They will be funded by the local authority, which will play a strategic role in improving standards and in commissioning school places in the right places to meet pupil needs and the demands of parents.

According to newspaper reports this week, restricted policy documents circulating within the Minister's Department state that trust schools will be able to decide on the admissions criteria that are in their best interests. Will the Minister confirm that such a document exists? Does she accept that that means that schools could use academic selection as part of their criteria? Does she accept that the Prime Minister, the White Paper and education experience in Northern Ireland have proved that that is the fairest and best way of selecting youngsters for post-primary schools?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's case. I have been clear about this, and the White Paper is clear about it. Trust schools have to operate with regard to the code of admissions, within the law, which means that there will be no return to selection and the divisive 11-plus. If any unfair criteria are used, they can be overturned by the adjudicator, which acts on a statutory basis in the public interest.

rose—

I call Kerry McCarthy.

I have obviously made a great impression!

What obligation will trust schools have to looked-after children, who are among the most vulnerable children in society? We talk about children who leave with five good GCSEs, but what are we doing about those who leave with no qualifications at all?

I assure my hon. Friend that she has made a great impression on me in the months that she has been in this House, and I am sure that she will continue to do so in years to come.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to looked-after children. They are a group of children very close to my own heart, and in the months to come I would like my Department to produce quality proposals specifically dealing with their educational attainment. We need to make regulations to give looked-after children priority in admissions not only to community schools but to trust schools. I am committed to doing that.

I hope that I am right this time. I call Patrick McLoughlin.

I am pleased to say that you are, Mr. Speaker, as always.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the great difference between trust schools and grant-maintained schools is that the latter were established only after parents had a ballot? What right will parents have as to whether schools are trust schools?

It will be up to the school's governing body to decide whether it wants to bring in an external partner, following consultation with parents. As a last resort, the local authority will have the ability to decide whether the trust is in the best interests of the pupils in that area, whether educational standards would rise and whether the majority of parents would feel happy with adopting a trust.

Teachers in Stafford are much more interested in behavioural measures in school and individual learning plans tailored to students' needs. Will such measures be introduced without the need for lengthy legislation?

My hon. Friend is right that we need a clear right to discipline. We are committed to introducing that in the legislation. However, trust schools will make it easier to replicate success. For example, when they tailor education specifically to the needs of pupils in their area or link up with a local business on a charitable basis that can provide work placements and use the flexibility to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs of pupils in the area, it will be much easier via the trust school mechanism to replicate that model. All the trust model is trying to do is encourage collaboration throughout an area where a trust has a specific plan to encourage that sort of education.

Will the Secretary of State publish before the recess all the research that she has on the impact on social segregation of allowing schools to set their admissions policy? Does she regret the fact that a few schools already discourage from attending and weed out local disadvantaged children? How would allowing thousands more schools, including primary schools, to set their admissions policies stop those unfair practices?

The hon. Gentleman and I had a good discussion about that yesterday. I drew to his attention the fact that the Department is working on drawing up a measure on social segregation. We do not believe that existing measures in the public domain do justice to the issue. In comparing local authorities and considering the impact of own-admission policies on social segregation, the preliminary conclusions of our research show that there is no correlation between the number of own-admission authorities and social segregation. Indeed, they show that, in some areas where the vast majority of schools are community schools, social segregation has been much higher. When we have finished the research we will be in a position to publish it.

My right hon. Friend knows that there is concern about the exact status of the code of practice on school admissions. Does she think that it is worth considering the argument for including the code of practice as a schedule in the forthcoming Bill?

If my hon. Friend is asking whether we are prepared to make the code of practice statutory, I do not believe that that is necessary to achieve the objectives that he sets for the policy and the Department. The code is established on a statutory basis, but there is discretion and flexibility in it to adapt admissions to meet the specific ends of a school and the pupils in the area. For example, if a school wanted to develop a specialism, the code provides that it could choose 10 per cent. by aptitude. The adjudicator operates on a statutory basis and can make binding decisions for all non-religious schools. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the code's importance in ensuring that all schools in the maintained sector operate on the basis of fair admissions.

I call Mr. David Cameron.

Thank you for recognising me, Mr. Speaker.

The White Paper states that the Government's aim is

"the creation of a system of independent non-fee paying schools."

We support that principle. Part of it is giving the new trust schools, such as the academies and the foundation schools, control over their admissions. Instead of endlessly reassuring her Back Benchers, will the Secretary of State explain what benefits she thinks the new freedom will bring?

It can be important for a school in certain circumstances to have control over the criteria that it sets for its admissions. For example, if a school operates in an area where specific ethnic groups are highly concentrated, it might be appropriate for it to move away from a catchment-area system towards one that promotes a mixed-ability intake from a much broader area. On the other hand, it may be appropriate, as I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for a music college to be able to select 10 per cent. by aptitude to build up an orchestra in the school. It could then share best practice on music with other schools in the area. That is the sort of freedom that I want. I do not want the sort of freedom that the hon. Gentleman talks about when he says that his only objection to the city academy programme is that it cannot select on ability.

Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State said that the code of practice on admissions would not be made a statutory code. Today, she said that she did not think that that was necessary. Can I ask her to go a bit further and rule out that change?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the code achieves its ends of ruling out selection by ability on its current statutory basis. He is confused—the code already operates on a statutory basis. Schools take it into account, and then the adjudicator, which is also statutory, can use its discretion to say whether the school has interpreted it correctly. Interpretation of the code, however, is very important for schools that want to create their own distinctive ethos.

2. What criteria are used in selecting books to be given free to pre-school age children under the Bookstart programme. [31310]

Bookstart is administered by Booktrust, an independent charity that invites all UK publishers to submit books for consideration. If accepted, they are generally acquired from sponsoring publishers at a fraction of the usual retail cost. Booktrust chooses books on the basis of quality and adherence to safety standards, as well as content and suitability. It operates a selection panel that meets approximately every six to 12 months. The panel consists of librarians, health visitors, speech and language therapists, early-years educationists and Bookstart team members. It is independent and has no Government involvement.

May I add my support for the invaluable work that Booktrust does and for the Government's support for the Bookstart programme? We all know that reading between parents and very young children, which is an important part of attachment theory, can help their development later. What is she doing to ensure that as many parents as possible are able to access this scheme, particularly if they have reading difficulties themselves? Given the great expertise shown by this charity, which has been going since the 19th century, will she ensure that the choice of books and materials is left to the experts at the charity, and is not undermined by the heavy hand of political correctness and interference from within her Department?

We do not interfere with the way in which Bookstart carries out its functions. We encourage all parents, local authorities and Sure Start units to make sure that they take advantage of it. Between 2005 and 2008, we expect to give out 4.5 million books. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the aims, which are to enable and support children's early communication, language development and social and emotional development, and to get parents used to reading to their children and sharing storytelling and rhymes. That will assist all children who are able to access the scheme to develop to their full potential.

The Minister mentioned the number of books that she anticipates being distributed. What is her assessment of the impact that the scheme will have on improving reading standards, and how will that be measured?

We always evaluate such schemes. Obviously, it is too soon to do so in this case. The scheme is going national, in its three different phases, from this year. There will be evaluation, but it stands to reason to expect that children who read early and often, and who get into the habit of doing so with their parents, will develop earlier the kind of skills that they need to succeed in school.

3. What assessment her Department has made of Sir Andrew Foster's report on the further education sector; and if she will make a statement. [31311]

Sir Andrew Foster published his report "Realising the Potential: A review of the future role of further education colleges" on 15 November. We think that it is an excellent report. It sets out clearly and convincingly the priorities that we must address. We want to take time to consider the report in discussion with colleges and other stakeholders. We shall announce in the spring the next stage of our reform of further education.

The Minister will be aware of the significant funding gap between FE colleges and mainstream schools. She has said that she will close that gap by only half. Given that, according to the Association of Colleges, our FE colleges take many children from poorer backgrounds, does she really believe that teachers in FE colleges should be paid less than those in secondary education?

The hon. Lady is confusing two things: the funding gap and how we fund further education colleges, and the use of the money that we grant to further education colleges. Over the past eight years since 1997, funding for further education colleges has increased by 48 per cent. in real terms. Furthermore, last week, I was able to tell the Association of Colleges that we have proposals that will narrow the funding gap by 5 percentage points by the 2006–07 academic year. From 2008, further measures will narrow it by another 3 percentage points. I should have thought that she would welcome those measures.

What plans has my right hon. Friend to improve basic skills training for the most difficult and disadvantaged young people? Will further education colleges work with independent providers such as Rathbone, a charity that works with young people who are not in education, employment or training? How will my right hon. Friend ensure that the "easy" young people are not cherry-picked, and that efforts are focused on those who are terribly disadvantaged and most in need of those efforts?

My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is a fundamental requirement of social justice for those who do not acquire basic skills at school, or do not secure the equivalent of five good GCSEs, to have a second, third or even fourth chance to do so later in life. I recently announced that more than 1 million adults had taken advantage of our skills for life initiative, and had acquired basic skills in the work place.

The way to deal with my hon. Friend's concerns is to give individuals the entitlement to receive that training and extra help free of charge. We are therefore reprioritising funding in the way that I described to the Association of Colleges last week. We are ensuring that public funds are used to give the most effective support to the learners who need it most.

Walford and North Shropshire college delivers 500 courses to more than 8,500 adults at 150 venues. It is proposed that such activity be undertaken by voluntary groups, museums and libraries. That is totally inappropriate in a thinly populated rural area. May I bring the principal of the college, Mr. Ron Pugh, to meet the Secretary of State and explain that the Foster report is an urban-based document that cannot work in rural areas?

I do not accept that it is an urban-based document that will not work in rural areas, although of course we will consider all the issues raised in it carefully over the next few months. I am not aware of the position of the hon. Gentleman's further education college, but if he puts it in writing I shall be happy to discuss the best course of action with him.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on announcing last week that she would reduce the funding gap. Her announcement was welcomed by all who are genuinely interested in further education. While the momentum is in our favour, may I urge her to go that little step further and examine the treatment of sixth-form and further education colleges for value-added tax purposes? Will she try to ensure that they are governed by the same regime as schools?

My hon. Friend has raised a complex and important point. As he knows, tax issues are dealt with by my right hon. Friends in the Treasury, but we discuss the issues regularly to ensure that we use facilities to best effect and meet the requirements of learners who need them most.

The Foster report has been welcomed by the Government and, indeed, by Members in all parts of the House. On page 52, it makes two criticisms: of the Department's micro-management of the Learning and Skills Council, and of the Learning and Skills Council's micro-management of the further education colleges. When will the Secretary of State stop micro-managing, and stop her Department micro-managing, those two disasters, in order—I quote Foster's damning verdict on the Government—

"to lighten the impact of centralised control"

and monitoring,

"and minimise the duplication and undue central demands"?

I think that the report is absolutely right to draw attention not just to the situation in FE colleges, but to what the Department and the LSC could do better. We need to reflect on the report and see whether we can improve our management of the situation. The LSC has just announced a radical programme of change, which will mean the loss of 1,300 jobs as it moves away from the process that the hon. Gentleman describes as "micro-management" towards much greater regional clarity about its role.

I accept that my Department needs to define the boundaries between what it does and what is done by the LSC, and we are discussing with the LSC how that can be achieved.

4. How many schools will undergo a major refurbishment in 2005. [31312]

We are investing £5.5 billion in school buildings and information and communications technology in 2005–06, including £2.1 billion for "Building Schools for the Future". The first wave of investment will enable BSF to transform secondary schools in 17 local authorities, including Stoke. BSF aims broadly to build half the schools, refurbish 35 per cent. and carry out minor works on 15 per cent.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making almost £200 million available to Stoke-on-Trent city council as part of the first wave. I am delighted that the Sandon new school will be up and running by 2007. Will my hon. Friend urge the local education authority to consult widely on how the money will be spent and which new schools will be developed, particularly with respect to Longton and Edensor high schools?

Yes, my hon. Friend will be well aware that the organisation of Stoke schools is a local matter that is subject to statutory procedures. Any proposals will have to go through those procedures, a large part of which requires consultation—and preferably agreement—locally. If local agreement is not reached, however, provision can be made for conclusions to be reached.

The Minister will know that in Scandinavian countries, schools are built for the future through the principle of school choice. In Sweden, for example, that has resulted in 500 new schools. Translated into this country, that would mean 5,000 new schools over the period of a decade. In his foreword to the education White Paper, the Prime Minister spoke in glowing terms about the Swedish reforms, but no mention is made in the body of that paper and if funding does not follow—

Order. By my reckoning, the question is about the refurbishment of schools. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the mark.

As my hon. Friend is aware, part of the programme is about extending the school day and ensuring that pupils have access to sports facilities. Will she ensure that the refurbishment links in closely with the new opportunities fund, which I believe is still lagging a little behind? It is important to make strategic choices about where the sports facilities go in local schools to match the needs of local communities.

Yes, my hon. Friend is right to mention both extended schools and the possibilities that they provide for children and young people to have somewhere to go and things to do. He is also right to stress the importance of sport and ensuring co-ordination between different capital funding streams. He will be aware that, during the spending review period, £17.5 billion of capital investment is going into our schools. That should equate to many new sports facilities all around the country.

5. How many temporary mobile classrooms are in use for mainstream lessons in schools under the control of Dorset local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [31313]

Dorset local education authority did not include any data about temporary buildings in its asset management data sets returned to the Department, but I understand that there are approximately 220 temporary mobile buildings at their schools. Dorset schools will receive nearly £90 million for buildings over the next three years.

I thank the Minister for her answer. Is she aware that 35 of those classrooms are on the site of Lytchett Minster upper school, representing 52 per cent. of its classrooms? They have been there for five and a half years, following a serious fire. To date, the Conservative-controlled county council has not even submitted a planning application. Meanwhile, costs are escalating, so will the Minister and her officials investigate what can be done to break through this impasse and ensure that this really good school can keep up its high standards?

I can understand the hon. Lady's frustration on behalf of her constituents, particularly in view of how long those classrooms have been there since the fire at Lytchett Minster school. There is, of course, a limit to what the Government can do to ensure that Conservative authorities carry out their responsibilities, but I am sure that they will have listened carefully to what the hon. Lady has said today. I hope that they will make good use of the considerable extra investment in school buildings that the Government are putting into Dorset.

Does the Minister agree that a bigger issue facing parents in my constituency is the county council's refusal to promote change, competition and choice by not allowing Highcliffe comprehensive school to expand—an expansion that could be facilitated by the use of temporary classrooms?

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about Dorset, I am sure that he has taken up this issue with his political colleagues on the county council. This issue has been very important to this Government. In fact, we have facilitated, through capital funding, the expansion of popular and successful schools. It is of course important that local authorities also bear in mind the needs of parents and the need to ensure fair access to a diverse range of schools, and that they use the additional funding that the Government are making available to ensure that that happens. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless put pressure on his political colleagues to ensure that they do.

6. What discussions she has had with the Treasury about further education funding for Somerset. [31314]

On 21 October, the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), wrote to all MPs setting out the strategic direction for the learning and skills sector for 2006–08. This includes a greater funding focus on our priorities of ensuring a place in school or college, or an apprenticeship, for all young people; and—as was mentioned earlier—a focus on adults who lack a solid foundation of employability skills. These priorities are spelled out in the 14-to-19 White Paper and in the two skills White Papers that were agreed with the Treasury. They are also reflected in our FE allocations to providers in Somerset, which increased by 4 per cent. above inflation this year.

Will the Minister comment on the fact that if a 16 to 18-year-old goes to a secondary school, they attract automatic funding for the school, but not if they go to a tertiary college? That puts Somerset at a severe disadvantage, because we have five excellent tertiary colleges that attract a lot of pupils from outside the county boundary, where funding does not follow the pupil. The situation is made much worse by the Government's cut in adult education funding to those colleges. Will the Minister look again at the particular problems faced by such colleges in Somerset—problems caused by his Department and the Treasury?

There has been no cut in FE funding; indeed, it has increased by some 48 per cent. in real terms since 1997. That contrasts starkly with the four years in the run-up to 1997, when the average funding unit per FE student fell by about 14 per cent. So let us be clear: resources have been going into FE. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the differing funding rates for young people in different institutions. If he was in the Chamber earlier, he will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State point out that we are closing the funding gap between FE and sixth forms. It will be down to 8 per cent. next year and we will narrow the gap further. That will mean that young people can look forward to continuing investment in their education—in Somerset and elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that in my part of Somerset, Weston-super-Mare college, of which I am a governor, is suffering—along with many other colleges throughout the country—from a problem that the Association of Colleges has identified as arising from the introduction of the new entitlement to free level 2 courses? That has meant a substantial loss of fee income to FE colleges from large employers in industries such as construction, engineering and catering. Such money must now be made up by the taxpayer as a dead-weight cost of the new policy, before any additional educational benefit is achieved.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of level 2 funding for adults in the workplace. We have a huge skills gap, as Members in all parts of the House recognise, and we need to shift our focus—as we are doing—in the way that the Foster report described, on to providing funding for adult skills in the workplace. This system will provide a huge opportunity for colleges in the next two years, as the demand-led roll-out of the national employer training programme gives employers free, full-level entitlement. They will be able to choose the colleges that provide the training that they want, at the time when and in the place where they want it. That demand-led system will drive up skills in the work force, and provide a good opportunity for investment and for the provision of training by FE colleges.

To return to the county of Somerset, does the Minister appreciate the difficulties that we are experiencing, as even a cursory comparison of funding for FE colleges in Somerset with that for other authorities in the south-west shows? The disproportionately high number of 16 to 18-year-olds in Somerset who go to FE colleges—rather than school sixth forms, of which there are very few—has produced a distorting effect that has squeezed substantially adult education in Somerset's FE colleges. Will the Minister talk to the Learning and Skills Council about this and look again at the figures? We are concerned that some very good college education is being lost as a result.

I want to make two points. First, to meet the needs of young people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and its neighbours, funding for 16 to 18-year-olds in Somerset has gone up by no less than 12 per cent. Secondly, although there has been a shift in public funding for adult places, the hon. Gentleman should ask his local colleges about their fee structure. We are asking colleges to collect more fee income from adult learners as part of the process of rebalancing what is provided by taxpayers, learners and employers. We believe that there is scope to increase colleges' fee income so that they can maintain the courses that people value.

7. How many pupils were recorded as having at least one incident of truancy in 2004–05. [31315]

10. How many pupils were recorded as having at least one incident of truancy in 2004–05. [31318]

Figures are collected not for truancy but for unauthorised absence as a whole. In 2004–05, around 1.4 million pupils, out of a total maintained school population of more than 6.5 million pupils, were recorded as having at least one half-day session of unauthorised absence. Unauthorised absence includes pupils who arrive late, term-time holidays taken without the school's permission and absences for which the explanation is unsatisfactory, such as shopping.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the figure is far too high. The Government have spent just under £1 billion on combating truancy, yet the rate of unauthorised absence is higher now than when Labour came to power. Does she think that the taxpayer is getting good value for money from the Government's anti-truancy schemes?

The amount of money that the hon. Gentleman quoted goes towards a wide range of measures, most of which, contrary to press reports, are focused on behaviour rather than truancy. However, Opposition Members need to understand the real story, which is that the 1995–96 absences total of more than 7.5 per cent. of half-day sessions missed was a record high since statistics were first collected. Since the Government took control and started bearing down on absences as a whole, the figure has fallen every year for the past four years and is now down to below 6.5 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must also understand that head teachers are trying to bear down on authorised as well as unauthorised absences—for example, by refusing to give parents permission to take their children out of school for holidays in term time. That is bringing down the overall level, but it has resulted in a very small increase on last year in authorised absences. He has to take the picture as a whole—

Order. Perhaps the Minister could write to the hon. Gentleman.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's manifest failure to tackle truancy has been a significant contributory factor to the epidemic of antisocial behaviour under Labour? That has caused much misery to many thousands of people across the country—sadly, including in my constituency of Chipping Barnet.

Unfortunately, the hon. Lady is very ill informed. As I have just explained, unauthorised absences cover circumstances that go well beyond persistent truancy. We reckon that about 2 per cent. of pupils are persistent truants, and Government action has caused schools to bear down on that in a very deliberate way. Hot spots have been identified, and there is a fast-track system of individual case management for the young people involved. Various measures for parents, including penalty notices and prosecution, are helping to tackle the problem in a meaningful way. It is also important to give support to young people, some of whom truant because of self-esteem problems or family difficulties. For the first time, those problems are being dealt with in a real way.

May I urge my right hon. Friend not to lose sight of the fact that truancy is often linked to poor behaviour in schools, and in particular to bullying? That is what causes pupils to absent themselves. As well as bearing down on parents who wilfully refuse to send their children to school, will she ensure that the causes of some children being absent are tackled properly?

My hon. Friend is right. Persistent truancy will not be tolerated: that is the bottom line, and the approach that we are encouraging schools to take. However, pupils truant for a variety of reasons. Poor self-esteem is the reason for some, while others feel that they are not doing well in school or experience serious problems at home, with parents who cannot help them to go to school regularly. It is very important that those problems are also dealt with, and schools work with local authorities and social services to ensure that that happens.

My right hon. Friend should take no notice of the Conservative party, because when it was in power it could not care less about truancy. I praise the Government for giving our council tremendous support in tackling truancy. [Interruption.] If you wait a minute, I will tell you. Middlesbrough council—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. I call Mr. Bercow.

Given that one way to minimise the incidence of truancy is to maximise the number of interesting and productive lessons, will the Minister confirm that in future there will be no place whatever in our schools for the advice of Kimberley, Meek and Miller on the teaching of reading, for those three academics are on the record as saying:

"Within the psychosemiotic framework the shared reading lesson is viewed as an ideological construct"—

Order. Perhaps someone will get the supplementary right.

I share my right hon. Friend's concern that we should worry about persistent truants rather than those who have one absence in a period. What action is being taken to make parents take their responsibility seriously and to give them support in preventing children from becoming and remaining persistent truants?

Schools are operating a fast-track case management system that requires them to identify persistent truants and develop an individual action plan that involves their parents. It enables schools to use penalty notices and the threat of prosecution if parents cannot within 12 weeks show an improvement in their child's attendance. It is an individualised, focused approach that enables schools to address some of the needs of young people and parents. It is showing good results. There has been an overall 11 per cent. improvement where the fast-track management system is being used.

8. what measures her Department has introduced since 1997 to promote setting and streaming in schools. [31316]

Since 1997, when the Government's first White Paper on schools made clear the presumption that setting should be the norm in secondary schools, we have used our national strategies, the gifted and talented programme, case studies and research evidence to help schools to consider a range of ways to group by ability. That is why there is more setting by ability in secondary schools now than there was in 1997.

I note the Minister's reply, but for the past eight years the Government have allowed political dogma to dominate their education policies, not the best interests of children. We welcome some aspects of the recent White Paper and hope to see the return of setting and streaming across the majority of schools. What assurances can the Minister give that setting and streaming will become the norm in all schools to allow children to develop their full potential and achieve excellence at their own pace and according to their own aptitude?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has let political dogma get in the way of, first, listening to my answer and, secondly, understanding what the Government have put in place. In 1997 we made it clear in the first schools White Paper that, unless a school can demonstrate that it is getting better than expected results through a different approach, we would presume that setting should be the norm in secondary schools. We backed that up with support for our national strategies through guidance to teachers—the sort of guidance and support that, in the 11 years I spent as a teacher, I never received from the previous Government.

After more than 20 years as a parent and governor in secondary schools, I strongly support setting and welcome what the Government have done since 1997, but will the Minister decouple streaming and setting? Streaming can have negative effects. It can reinforce social class divisions, it can lead to bias and inconsistency in the allocation of pupils to sets and it can reduce the teaching expectations of the less able. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he speaks from knowledge. The advantage of setting is that it enables a sophisticated targeted approach for different subjects, where it would be appropriate in some cases and less so in others. That is why, for example, there is variance across subjects, with more than 80 per cent. of maths lessons being set, but probably less than 10 per cent. in classes such as physical education. It is for head teachers, with the support and guidance of Government, to make the decisions that, in their professional judgment, are right for their schools. That is the approach that the Government take—not trying to run schools from Whitehall, as I suspect the Opposition propose.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) said, one of the elements of the White Paper that we support is the encouragement for schools to adopt setting, as we also did when that policy was first announced in the Government's White Paper in 1997. So why today are 60 per cent. of academic lessons in secondary schools still being taught in mixed-ability classes? Why, if the Government are serious about encouraging setting in secondary schools, did they remove from Ofsted inspection criteria the requirement to monitor and record whether lessons are setted?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from the various parliamentary answers I have given him recently, Ofsted changed the way in which it measures grouping by ability—[Hon. Members: "When?"] In 2003–04, precisely so that there could be a more sophisticated and clearer understanding of grouping by ability, rather than conflating, banding and setting. The key point, as I emphasised earlier, is that we have made clear our support for setting. We have put more guidance and practical support into schools to deliver setting. There is more setting in our secondary schools than there was when we came into government. The hon. Gentleman appears to be arguing for the running of schools, the setting of timetables and the division of pupils from Whitehall rather than from the head teacher's office. That is the approach that he is proposing, but he is wrong. The approach that we are taking is much more likely to ensure that pupils can progress and that schools can make the decisions that are right for them.

9. If she will make a statement on the funding of the higher education sector beyond 2007. [31317]

Government expenditure on higher education is increasing by about £2 billion between 2004–05 and 2007–08, to almost £9.5 billion. Higher education institutions are also benefiting from increases in research funding. Government funding beyond 2007–08 will be decided as part of the comprehensive spending review. Institutions will have an extra income from variable fees that is estimated to reach £1.35 billion in steady state by 2010.

I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed response, but I must press him a little further. Will he allay the concerns raised with me by Plymouth university—a popular new university that is growing fast and attracting students—that post 2007–08 there could be a reduction in funding in direct relation to the increase that universities receive in fees, as happened in Australia and New Zealand? Were that to happen, it would be very damaging to universities such as Plymouth.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I certainly share her view about the good work that Plymouth university is doing. Vice-chancellors regularly raise the issue with me and I highlight to them, as I do to my hon. Friend, the fact that we are currently maintaining the unit of teaching resource, which is a reversal of the policy that we inherited from the Conservatives. No Government can make a commitment beyond the current spending review; however, in discussing that review we shall very much keep in mind the priority that universities give the issue.

Given the benefits that universities have as a result of the tuition fee system introduced by the Government, can the Minister assure me that he will look favourably on proposals to allow universities to lift the current cap on their tuition fees, and on proposals by universities to retain more of those sums rather than having them centralised in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

This is a matter of balance, but I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's question as I thought that the Opposition opposed variable fees. Clearly, things are moving swiftly. I remind the hon. Gentleman of our policy position, which has not changed since we took the Higher Education Bill through Parliament: by law it will not be possible to lift the cap before January 2010 at the earliest; no decision will be taken until the independent commission has reviewed the introduction of the first three years of the system; and after 2010 the cap can be lifted only if approval is given by both Houses of Parliament.

11. If she will revise the funding formula for schools to take greater account of the mobility of school populations. [31319]

In developing our proposals for the new dedicated schools grant, we considered with our partners whether there should be a mobility factor in the distribution of funding for local authorities and decided against it. Of course local authorities can already take account of pupil mobility in their local funding formulae. We will announce in the near future our final decisions on the distribution of the new dedicated schools grants for 2006–07 and 2007–08.

The Minister will know that, in boroughs such as mine, in most of inner London and in much of the rest of the country, people will be extremely unhappy with that answer. Given that some schools have a 60 per cent. turnover in classes in the same year and, in many, a third of the pupils change between the first and second sets of tests, will she look again at what the Prime Minister's strategy unit said only two years ago and at what the Association of London Government report said in June this year, both of which make it clear that a fair funding formula to reflect rapidly changing pupils in classrooms is necessary for equal educational opportunity?

The hon. Gentleman rightly makes the case that the challenge with respect to pupil mobility rests on the individual schools in which a large proportion of pupils are mobile. That is why it is absolutely right that local authority funding formulae can and should take account of differential funding for schools with high mobility. Given the wide spread of mobility across a range of local authorities, the effect of distributing between authorities on the basis of mobility would have been to flatten and reduce the extra contributions to those authorities with additional educational needs on the basis of deprivation, not to benefit authorities such as the hon. Gentleman's. That is why the decision was taken.

21. If he will make a statement on the Merseyside "No Witness, No Justice" initiative. [31301]

Under "No Witness, No Justice", the pilot witness care unit opened in Sefton in March. It helps to increase witness attendance at court by about 20 per cent. As a result of that success, a new centralised witness care unit is being set up in Liverpool to cover a wider area, and I understand that it will open next Monday.

I very much welcome both the opening on Monday and the increased attendance of witnesses that the scheme has brought about. Given that the MORI survey that was commissioned to look at the issue also found an increase in both witnesses' and victims' confidence in the criminal justice system, how does my hon. and learned Friend assess the scheme's potential, when it is rolled out in Merseyside and elsewhere, to bring about more speedy and effective justice?

The aim is to ensure that we encourage witnesses to attend court, give evidence and help to secure justice. The Liverpool centralised unit is intended to cover the Wirral and Merseyside, and it aims to provide a better service for witnesses and victims. Victims will have a single point of contact to ensure that they get information about how their cases are proceeding. The unit will keep them informed of progress, offer help with issues such as child care, transport to and from the court or referral to witness support if they need it. We will also seek to ensure that, when people attend court, the witness service meets them and looks after them while they are there. The aim is to get a better deal for witnesses and victims, and a better deal for the public because more offenders are brought to justice.

22. If he will make it a requirement for sentencing in all road traffic cases where a fatality has occurred to be made at the Crown court. [31302]

Currently, offences of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while unfit because of alcohol or drugs are triable at the Crown court. Careless driving is dealt with at magistrates courts. The Government intend to create two new imprisonable offences of causing death by careless driving and causing death while driving while disqualified, unlicensed or uninsured. Magistrates will decide the appropriate venue for sentencing, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including the driver's culpability.

I am grateful to the Minister for that very encouraging response, but does he not accept that, on some occasions when a guilty plea is made at a magistrates court for careless driving, the magistrates are not made aware of the fact that there has been a fatality? Does he not agree therefore that, on every occasion where there has been a fatality, the court needs to know and, preferably, the case should go to Crown court for sentence, even on a guilty plea?

It is certainly my view that if a fatality has occurred following a traffic incident, magistrates should be informed. It is then for the court to decide the appropriate venue for sentencing. The court is, to a considerable extent, best placed to make that decision. The sentence depends on the culpability of the defendant, rather than the consequence. Obviously, the death of someone is a horrendous consequence, but culpability inevitably varies according to the circumstances of a case. Cases involving a momentary lapse of concentration are different from those involving consistent erratic driving. Magistrates will have to judge whether they are able to deal with a case, or whether it should be dealt with at the Crown court, but they should certainly be aware of the fact that a fatality has occurred.

I am pleased that the Home Office has decided to create the new offence of causing death by careless driving, which is being put into the Road Safety Bill [Lords]. The offence will carry a maximum sentence of five years, so it is likely that most cases will be dealt with in the Crown court, provided that the prosecution charges manslaughter—at the worst—death by dangerous driving, or the new offence. Will my hon. and learned Friend give me a commitment that he will issue guidance to prosecutors throughout the country to ensure that one of those offences is charged in every case of death for which there is some culpability?

It will be for the CPS to assess the appropriate charge in individual circumstances under the code of practice and based on the evidence. Clearly, guidance will be provided. I cannot give entirely the undertaking that my hon. Friend wants. I want to examine the way in which the guidance should be drawn before I reach a decision. However, I will certainly write to him as soon as a decision on the nature of the guidance is taken.

The Solicitor-General will be aware that historically in our country we have been reluctant to criminalise a consequence when the cause of that consequence is inadvertence or negligence. Certainly, draconian penalties have not been imposed. I was thus pleased to hear him say that there will be cases in which death by careless driving can be dealt with in the magistrates court. Does he agree that there will be cases in which although the consequence might have been tragic, the extent of culpability will be such that the matter should stay in the magistrates court? Moreover, can he tell the House anything further about how a distinction will be made between dangerous driving and careless driving, given that the maximum penalty of five years for careless driving that is contemplated is a very substantial sentence indeed and well in excess of the majority of sentences imposed for death by dangerous driving at present?

We must carefully examine the way in which the courts will deal with the new offences in practice. That was why I was careful when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) about the guidance. Following the consultation that was completed in May, we took account of the views of hon. Members and people outside the House who thought that we needed to introduce the new offences in the Road Safety Bill. During the consultation, it was clear that the initial suggestion that the matter should be dealt with primarily in the Crown court was not viewed by the professionals as the right approach—they thought that it should go either way. There will thus be circumstances in which the magistrates court can appropriately deal with cases, so we must look at the detailed guidance for prosecutors on how they address magistrates on the matter.

23. What steps he is taking to speed up decision making by the Crown Prosecution Service. [31303]

Every effort is made by the Crown Prosecution Service to make decisions within a reasonable period. However, owing to the complexity of some cases, some decisions obviously take longer. The CPS must balance swift decisions with the need to get the decision right, based on a careful analysis of the evidence by experienced lawyers who operate under the code for Crown prosecutors.

My hon. and learned Friend is aware of the particular case about which I have been concerned. I appreciate his efforts and those of his colleagues on that. However, may I press him again and ask him to ensure that the CPS understands that there is not just a question of distress to the family, which obviously wants matters dealt with properly? There are much wider policy implications attached to some cases, and they cannot be progressed as long as the CPS does not take decisions. Will he ensure that such wider issues are also understood?

I know well the case that my hon. Friend raises and have spoken to the Director of Public Prosecutions about it on a number of occasions. I know that she has also spoken to the DPP.

Cases sometimes take a long time to reach a decision because of the need to collect evidence. My hon. Friend has raised concerns about the way in which that restricts the ability to discuss wider issues about how institutions of the penal system, in particular, operate. As there has been a delay in making a decision on the case, she has been unable to raise those concerns. I understand, however, that the Procedure Committee will consider the matter. I hope that the issues that concern my hon. Friend can be brought to its attention and that it considers the restrictions on her raising them in the House.

Are Law Officers willing to consider whether Crown prosecutors in different areas can be publicly accountable for the speed of decision making, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), or for the success of their prosecutions, so that there is public engagement with the people who make decisions on our behalf?

Crown prosecutors can engage with local MPs, and the hon. Gentleman can talk to the chief Crown prosecutor in his area if he wants to. Indeed, many hon. Members do that. The Law Officers supervise the Crown Prosecution Service and are answerable in this place for what happens. From time to time, the DPP has been brought before Select Committees, and other Crown prosecutors can appear before Select Committees on request.

There are a number of ways in which the CPS can engage publicly. To some extent, it depends on parliamentarians making the request. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular request, we would be happy to discuss it with him.