1. What plans he has to ensure that further education colleges are able to respond to demand for skills. (119645)

We have invested heavily in further education to ensure that colleges are able to respond to the demand for skills. The further education White Paper sets out a major programme of reforms to transform the FE system. Those reforms renew the economic mission for FE, make plain its central role in equipping young people and adults for productive employment, and put the interests of learners and employers at the heart of the system. Many of the reforms are being taken forward in the Further Education and Training Bill.

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. In Burnley, we have double the national average of people employed in manufacturing, yet employers tell me that they find it hard to find the skills they need. I am sure that the bid currently before the Higher Education Funding Council for a new university faculty specialising in engineering will help, if approved, but will my hon. Friend confirm that he will also allow colleges to offer foundation degrees in response to employer demand without a complex and lengthy accreditation procedure?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s commitment in working with her local college. Part of the way in which we face up to the skills challenge that she has outlined is through the train to gain initiative. The capital project involving a new further and higher education centre, which she has strongly supported, is going through the approvals process. I strongly welcome her support for the right of high-quality, high-performing further education colleges to be able to award their own foundation degrees. There will be a very robust quality assurance system. In order to face up to the significant skills challenges that we face, we need as much flexibility and innovation in the system as possible, and this measure will certainly help.

The Government are talking about making it compulsory for 16 to 18-year-olds to stay on in full-time education, but for many of them it will be a cruel and unusual punishment unless they get the relevant tuition that they need. What will the Minister do to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of teachers in places of higher and further education so that those young people can learn the skills that they need, and we need, for the future in areas such as plumbing, bricklaying and electrical work?

I take it that that was partly a speech in support of the ideas that we are considering as regards what happens to young people up to the age of 18. It is important to make it clear that we are not proposing that they should be forced to stay in school until the age of 18 if it is not in their interests. However, there is arguably a strong case for saying that people need to retain a commitment to and involvement in education and training, whether part-time or full-time, through to the age of 18. I agree that we need as many teachers as possible covering a range of disciplines, although I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that we have increased funding in the further education sector by 50 per cent. in real terms in the past 10 years, in stark contrast to what went before, is helping us to do that.

I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with Lowestoft college, which has four centres of vocational excellence, worked with more than 550 employers last year and has 288 apprentices. The college wholeheartedly welcomes the Leitch report and wants to be part of inspiring people as well as providing training, but it questions whether, with train to gain in its infancy, we can get to a fully demand-led system as soon as 2010.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Schools just whispered to me that it is a good day to hear from Mr. Blizzard, but I could not possibly comment on that.

I strongly agree that some very positive work is being done at Lowestoft college, which I visited last year with my hon. Friend. Getting to a fully demand-led system is a creditable ambition, because this is about ensuring that the qualifications and courses that are provided are genuinely what employers want. We have set out an ambition for the majority of that to be in place by 2015. The Leitch review contains a more ambitious set of proposals. We are considering those and will respond around the time of the comprehensive spending review later this year.

The Minister knows of my personal commitment and that of my party to our further education colleges, which do so much good for so many. He also knows of the Opposition’s constructive approach to foundation degree-awarding powers. However, will he reconsider the need to ensure FE-HE links through statutory articulation agreements; to guarantee rigour with appropriate parliamentary scrutiny; and to pledge that the matter will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis after an agreed period of time? Further education deserves to be treated as grown up and universities deserve to know that degrees will rigorously teach and test genuine competence.

I genuinely welcome the hon. Gentleman’s constructive approach and that of Opposition Front Benchers to the important issue. There is a joint recognition that we need as much flexibility in the system as possible to confront our significant skills challenge. We have already set out in the House of Lords the robust quality assurance mechanism. The articulation agreements, which will ensure that no further education college can go it alone and that there has to be a relationship with a university, are a key part of the proposal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I shall write to Members in the other place shortly before the Bill is before the House on Report. I hope that he will then realise that we have tackled the concerns that he and others have expressed.

2. What the average funding per school pupil will be in (a) Leicestershire and (b) England in 2007-08; and if he will make a statement. (119646)

The school funding settlement for 2006 to 2008, announced in December 2005, gives Leicestershire a guaranteed unit of funding per pupil through the dedicated schools grant of £3,429 for 2007-08, which is a real-terms increase of a third since 1997. The England average is £3,888, which is a real-terms increase under the Government of just below 40 per cent.

Yet again, Leicestershire comes bottom for funding in shire education authorities. The education of a child in Leicester city, just a few yards across the Braunstone lane from my constituency, is apparently worth £542 more than that of a child in my constituency in Braunstone town—if my maths is right, and I believe that it is. I took a delegation to see the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) when he was Education Secretary to complain about that. He said that that must never happen again, but it has. When will the Government produce a much more level playing field? What do they have against Leicestershire pupils?

Naturally, we have nothing against Leicestershire, Somerset or even Dorset people. We ensure that funding is allocated on the basis of need, but we give deprivation priority. I note that the hon. Gentleman is interested in taking money away from Leicester to give it to others in Leicestershire. That is the logic of his comments. I presume that he would want similar redistribution in Birmingham and other areas around the country. We are examining the matter carefully. I note his interest and his points, but we need to reflect deprivation in funding settlements to give every child the best possible start.

I declare an interest as a governor of Ibstock community college and of Ashby school. Of course, those schools and others would like a better deal from school funding. However, did not Gareth Williams, the director of children and young people’s services at the Conservative-controlled county council, explode the myth about Leicestershire’s position when he said that it was funded somewhere near the average and that educational achievement and funding at the margin are not especially linked?

Will my hon. Friend the Minister accept an invitation to Ashby school, where I used to chair the governing body, to examine the quality of education that is available in our county from the money that we receive?

My hon. Friend makes some important points and I agree with him. I shall examine my diary sympathetically and discuss ways in which I can respond positively to his warm invitation.

Staffordshire does not do as badly as the county that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) represents, but it is still 132nd in funding out of 149 local education authorities. Does the Minister understand the frustration of people in Staffordshire and other counties when there is no clarity about the way in which the scale is calculated? It is especially frustrating because Labour candidates in Staffordshire in 1997 promised equal funding throughout England, apart from Greater London, for all pupils. That promise has clearly been broken.

The hon. Gentleman should know that we promised to increase radically and improve the amount of funding available to our schools. We have fulfilled that promise for the people of Staffordshire. The increase in real terms under the Government for schools in Staffordshire is 39.1 per cent. It is 88th out of 148 in respect of the increase in education funding. I am sure that he welcomes that.

Will my hon. Friend confirm the major real-terms increase in funding for the Liverpool education authority? Is he satisfied that the funding is being used to tackle under-achievement, including among Somali and Yemeni children?

I certainly can confirm that increase. The statistic involved is a 43.6 per cent. real-terms increase for the young people of Liverpool. We are looking closely at the local education authority’s performance in delivering for all the young people, including those from the ethnic groups that my hon. Friend mentioned. Indeed, I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children and Families, and others, last week, at which we had a detailed discussion on some of the improvements that Liverpool is making. We want to work closely, through the Government office, to support it in dealing with all children in Liverpool.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) has raised an important point. There is a huge differential between the allocation of resources to schools in towns and cities and schools in shire counties. Does the Minister agree that, if deprivation is to be recognised, it should be recognised through a different form of funding rather than through education funding? Surely it is only right that every child in this country, whether at primary or secondary level, should receive the same sum. Deprivation can be reflected through other funding. The Cheshire schools funding forum has recently met, and it is deeply concerned about what appears to be the discrimination against the children in the county of Cheshire, which does have areas of high deprivation.

I am well aware of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) has spoken to me at some length on behalf of his constituents about the levels of deprivation in his area. Cheshire has had a 38.7 per cent. real-terms increase in school funding over the past 10 years. As I look at the next funding round, I want to ensure that the money that we rightly allocate in respect of deprivation and disadvantage—which are important determinants of education outcomes—finds its way to the schools that need it within the authorities. In that way, those schools in the more deprived areas of Cheshire that really need the funding will receive it.

3. If he will make a statement on reform of funding of English for speakers of other languages provision. (119647)

Since 2001, almost 2 million people have taken up the opportunity to improve their English language skills through the Skills for Life strategy. Changes set out in the Learning and Skills Council’s annual statement of priorities in October 2006 will build on that success by focusing funding more effectively, through full fee remission, on vulnerable learners most in need of taxpayers’ support. The Government will continue to make a significant contribution to fees for others.

Although I understand the rationale behind that policy, may I make a plea for flexibility? My hon. Friend will be aware that many asylum seekers have to wait much longer than the minimum period to get their status resolved. There are also many immigrants earning the minimum wage in low-skilled jobs who find it extremely difficult to pay for the courses. Will my hon. Friend allow some flexibility in the policy in recognition of those constraints?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. It is clear, however, that the present situation is unsustainable. We have seen a tripling of numbers and a tripling of funding. If we simply go on increasing the budget, it will hit other elements of the Skills for Life programme. On asylum seekers, 80 per cent. of claims are now being dealt with within eight weeks, so it cannot be seen as a public funding priority to continue to fund learning for those who will not have the opportunity to remain in the United Kingdom.

On my hon. Friend’s other point, we have consulted widely as part of the race equality impact assessment, and I have met representatives of the Refugee Council and trade unions. I am trying to determine whether there is another indicator of low income besides the working tax credit that we could use to determine low income, in order to enable people to access free provision. It is also important to make it clear that, when the changes come through, people on low incomes will still get free ESOL provision. I estimate that that will involve at least 50 per cent. of the current cohort.

The Minister will be aware that earlier this week the Secretary of State stressed the importance of Britishness in the national curriculum. This country benefits hugely from an influx of new citizens who contribute immensely to the national health service, other public services and economic growth, but one of the barriers to effective social cohesion is the mastery of the English language. How can we promote social cohesion and build a successful multicultural Britain when there are constraints on the spending that would enable people to speak our shared, common language?

I agree that it is important for us to give people opportunities to learn, study and understand English, for the purpose of community cohesion and for many other reasons. That is why we have tripled the budget and the numbers since 2001. However, the present situation is unsustainable, as the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education has pointed out. We need to make a change.

I must say that I find the Opposition’s position inexplicable. They appear to be advocating an uneven playing field—

Order. What they appear to be doing is nothing to do with the Minister.

Is my hon. Friend aware that our ethnic communities already have to achieve a certain level of English to acquire citizenship, and that from April they will have to achieve a certain level of English to secure indefinite leave to remain? I agree that we cannot go on and on increasing the number of places, but we do not want people to be sent away because they do not speak English when there is nowhere for them to learn it.

I take my hon. Friend’s comments seriously, because I know that she has spent a great deal of time working on the issue, but the impact of the current unsustainable position is that in parts of the country people are having to wait for as long as two years to obtain a place on an ESOL programme, and the most vulnerable individuals are losing out most. The changes we are making are intended to ensure that such people gain access to provision. However, as part of the race equality impact assessment and in response to points that have been made to me, I am considering a number of ways of ensuring that the most vulnerable are genuinely protected.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that one in eight primary school pupils in England does not have English as a first language? If it is a good thing, why is English tuition not being properly funded? If it is a bad thing, why has the situation been allowed to develop?

The argument that English tuition is not being properly funded simply does not bear scrutiny. We have significantly increased provision both in ESOL and in schools.

The position of the Opposition parties lacks credibility. Given that the Conservative party is committed to £21 billion-worth of public spending cuts, I do not see how it would be able—

Order. The Minister should take advice from the Chair while the Speaker is in a good mood.

I am sorry to tell the Minister that I think that the position of the Government lacks credibility. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) are absolutely right. The Government cannot change the rules and say that people need to speak good English to become British citizens and must pay huge fees to the Home Office, and then deny them access to the very funds that will allow them to learn English adequately. Will the Minister please reconsider? Will he meet Members who have constituency interests in the matter—and those who may not, but who understand the principle—and review the Government’s policy?

If my right hon. Friend wants to discuss the issues with me, I am certainly prepared to meet him. I have already been meeting Members on an ongoing basis and discussing the proposals with them in detail. Let me make it clear, however, that every learner will continue to receive Government funding to the tune of 62.5 per cent. of the costs of the course, and that more than 50 per cent. of the current cohort will have continuing access to free provision. At present those in the greatest need—some of whom are probably in my right hon. Friend’s constituency—are having to wait for 18 months for access to the courses, and I do not think that we can allow that to continue.

4. What progress has been made on the introduction of the 14-19 diploma programme. (119648)

Having met the milestones for development of the new diploma qualifications that we published in the 14-19 education and skills implementation plan, we are on track for diploma courses to be provided for the first time from September 2008.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that business and industry should help to deliver the diploma for 14 to 19-year-olds, particularly in the manufacturing sector and particularly in the west midlands?

My hon. Friend is an engineer and takes a great interest in these issues. We already have more than 300,000 businesses engaged with schools and helping to give some aptitude for working in industry. On the diploma, we will now have for the first time in this country the mixed vocational and academic course—providing a mix of theoretical and practical knowledge—that many other countries in Europe and around the world have had for many years. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of involving businesses. We have had a tremendous amount of interest in developing the diplomas, because they are industry-driven, through the sector skills councils. There can be no complaint about the enthusiasm and involvement of industries throughout the country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is enormous enthusiasm in the sector—in colleges and schools, as well as among employers—to make the new diplomas a success? However, a visit by the Select Committee on Education and Skills to Lewisham college only this week—and my own personal visit to a Huddersfield further education college—found that there were still worries and concerns about the level of preparedness for getting them up and running at high quality on time. I know that we now have four champions behind them, but there is still a worry. Will my right hon. Friend give me a guarantee that we will provide new resources and put new energy into the Department to make them a success?

My hon. Friend’s Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the matter, and we would be grateful to discover the outcome of it. The qualification is tremendously fragile in that we have to get the first five diplomas up and running by 2008. That is a challenge, but we are putting energy, drive and commitment into meeting it—which is what my hon. Friend suggests we do. We are determined that, through the process we have introduced, we will be ready with those first five diplomas by 2008. No information has so far come before me that suggests that we are anything other than on track to achieve that. However, we always need the gentle persuasion of the Select Committee to ensure that we are on the right track. I welcome the interest of my hon. Friend and others, but I think that we will be okay by 2008.

5. If he will make a statement on the findings of the Leitch report on skills. (119649)

Lord Leitch’s final report, “Prosperity for all in the Global Economy—World Class Skills”, published in December 2006, gave a clear analysis of the future skills needs of the UK. It presented a substantial challenge to ensure that UK skills levels are world class by 2020. We have welcomed the report’s ambitions and recommendations, and we will publish an implementation plan to take forward the agenda in the context of the comprehensive spending review settlement.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that towns such as Banbury and Bicester need a skills centre—a one-stop location where employers and those who want to acquire skills can get information on initiatives such as the post-16 diplomas, train to gain, apprenticeships and adult skills training in general? The vast majority of businesses on the M40 corridor are small or medium-sized employers. They want a highly skilled work force and to compete in the world, but they need to be able to get targeted information on how they can link in to all the various Government initiatives.

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the exciting development has been train to gain; I refer Members to Lord Leitch’s report. We are using descriptions that the public might not understand, but the idea behind train to gain is to assist small businesses, which is where a particular problem lies in that they do not have the time to access lots of volumes of information in order to find out how to solve their skills problems. Under train to gain, we have trained brokers who meet small businesses to discuss their skills needs and then return with a skills package. That means that small businesses do not need to chase all over town to find the necessary information. train to gain is in its early stages, but it has been hugely successful. One of the most important of Lord Leitch’s recommendations is that all level 2 and level 3 provision should go through train to gain.

Does the Secretary of State agree with Lord Leitch, who said in his report that

“Many employers complain that the apprenticeship process is complex and bureaucratic. Government must take action to improve completion rates”?

Is it not shocking that only 41 per cent. of people under 18 and only 38 per cent. of people over 18 successfully complete their apprenticeships? Does that not tell us that many employers and employees do not find apprenticeships valuable? It is no good focusing on start rates if we have such low successful completion rates.

That question is relevant now, but it would have been more relevant a year ago, when the apprenticeship drop-out rate was extremely worrying. One reason for that drop-out rate—there have always been people who drop out of apprenticeships—is that some youngsters give up their apprenticeships to take jobs, sometimes in the same company. However, there has been a huge increase—about 15 per cent.—in the apprenticeship completion rate. Lord Leitch recognises the improvements that have been made and that we have increased the number of apprenticeships from 75,000—the figure when we came into government—to 250,000. He is right to say that we should work to ensure that bureaucracy does not get in the way of apprenticeships, but he also says that we should pledge that any youngster who is qualified and interested in taking on an apprenticeship should have a guaranteed place. He says that we need to reach the figure of 500,000 apprenticeships by 2020, and we agree. In putting that in place, we will examine the bureaucracy issue, but we are already tackling the problem of high drop-out rates and seeing stark and real improvements.

Can the Secretary of State explain the link between Leitch and his own declared preference for compulsion in post-16 training and education, bearing in mind that many young people may well prefer full-time work as the best mechanism for acquiring experience, disciplines and work-based skill?

One clear link is that Leitch himself says that we should look at lifting the education leaving age—it is wrong to call it the school leaving age—once the diplomas that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) referred to, which according to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority are the most dramatic and revolutionary change in education in the world, are in place by 2013. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right, and it is why we believe that youngsters aged 16 and 17 can be in the workplace, but at that age they should not receive no education or training whatever. They should not be divorced from the world of education at such a young age. Leitch tells us—this is the other link—that by 2020, the number of jobs that require no qualifications will have shrunk from 3.6 million to just 600,000, which is the current number of vacancies in the economy. So both those factors link the Leitch report to the debate that we will have about lifting the education leaving age.

6. What assessment he has made of the scope for extended school provision with the academy schools programme. (119650)

Academies form part of the local family of schools and are at the heart of their communities. We hope that they will play a full part in offering extended services.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Extended schools are proving their worth in terms of community links and improving attendance and attainment. Nowhere is that more important than in academy schools such as those in my constituency, which serve exceptionally deprived populations. The Westminster academy will be located in a ward in which 83 per cent. of all children live in workless households. Does my hon. Friend not agree with me that it is therefore extraordinary that existing academy schools have to pay VAT on their community activities? That is an additional financial penalty and an obstacle to their providing precisely the extended sports, drama and other facilities that those communities desperately need. Will my hon. Friend please sort out the situation immediately?

I am very much aware of the difference that the extended schools activities in my hon. Friend’s locality are making—I gather that more than 60 local activities are being delivered through extended schools—and she is right to highlight that point. She is also right to make the point about VAT—an issue on which she has previously had an Adjournment debate. It is an anomaly that we need to work through, and our officials are engaged in that process. I have become immersed in the issue in the past 24 hours and have got to know more about VAT and schools than I ever thought I would. This is an incredibly technical and complex subject, concerning paid-for activities in new buildings such as city academies, which have charitable status.

It involves those activities that form more than 10 per cent. of the business usage, of the school day or of the area used of a school. We are taking a close look at the issue and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to work with Treasury officials to get it sorted out as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that Park high school in Gaywood in my constituency is considering relocating and reopening as a city academy school on a new development in South Lynn? That is obviously an exciting development, but it will be a long and complex process. Will the Minister agree to meet me, the chairman of governors and someone from the local education authority to discuss the project?

I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s support for city academies, which is understandable. Places in city academies are three times oversubscribed—three applicants for every place—and they are seeing a sixfold improvement in GCSE results. City academies are doing some 20 per cent. better than the schools that they replaced, so I can understand why the hon. Gentleman supports the principle. Whether I meet him or whether I know a man who will—probably Lord Adonis, who has responsibility for city academies—I am sure that it will be possible. I expect that they will be able to correspond with each other to help to make that happen.

Does the building schools for the future programme provide that all schools that are rebuilt or refurbished have to make sufficient provision for extended school activities?

I am told that such schools are expected to have 500 sq m for community provision, so the answer is yes. As highlighted already by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent’s Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), a range of activities and extended services are taking place in city academies, involving not only pupils but their parents. I am sure that we will see more such activity in the future as we roll out the city academies programme. Our target is to have some 400 across the country.

7. What assessment he has made of the effect of the new rules for competitive tendering for new schools on the incentive for the local education authority in Derbyshire to consider merging existing schools. (119651)

School place planning is the statutory responsibility of the local authority. Competitions will normally be held whenever proposals are required for a new or replacement school. School amalgamations can be effected in different ways and it is up to the local authority to act in accordance with local circumstances.

Derbyshire county council, which was recently audited as excellent again, has held an extensive consultation with the community of Clay Cross, where three schools are to be replaced by one brand new, state of the art primary school. From the consultation it was clear that Clay Cross mums and dads want the new school to be run by Derbyshire county council, but that that decision will now be taken by the schools adjudicator. Can my hon. Friend explain what account is taken of the wishes of the community when the adjudicator makes his or her decision on who is to run the new school?

As ever, my hon. Friend is an excellent advocate for the mums and dads of Clay Cross. She is right to say that Labour Derbyshire is an excellent local authority. It is fulfilling its statutory duty to carry out an extensive public consultation on the proposals for new schools. The decision-maker’s guidance from the Secretary of State, which informs the work of the adjudicator, requires him to take account of the views expressed in the consultation by parents and the local community.

8. What plans he has to encourage more pupils to take A-levels. (119652)

The number of students taking A-levels is not a cause for concern. However, in order to make them even more attractive, we have announced proposals to revise A-levels. However, if we are to increase post-16 participation among young people, it is important that they have a range of qualifications from which they can choose. Therefore, in addition to our proposals to improve A-levels, we are introducing the new 14-19 diplomas and expanding the availability of the international baccalaureate.

A recent reply from the Minister for Higher Education and Lifelong Learning about Kennet school in Thatcham in my constituency missed the point about the tortuous process of Learning and Skills Council funding, which means that schools such as Kennet are penalised for growing their sixth forms and the numbers of pupils that stay on beyond the age of 16. Complaints to the LSC bring the response that the Department and Ministers are being inflexible in the funding rules that they set. Will the Secretary of State look into the matter, so that schools that do the Government’s bidding and grow their sixth forms are not penalised?

I will look into that. I cannot think that the Department would ever be inflexible, under any circumstances, so I reject that remark entirely. However, there does seem to a problem in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and we will be happy to try and solve it.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of Luton sixth form college’s stunning success with A-level results, but it also offers the international baccalaureate. That is a better course for many students, and it is possible that in future it will be regarded as a better course for all students in that age group. What success has he had so far in persuading other authorities to offer the IB?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to repeat the announcement made by my Department last September. We believe that the IB should be much more widely available, and the gateway to the diploma that we are setting up will extend by about 100 the number of local authorities where state school pupils can access it—a very important step forward. I agree that the diversity that the IB represents means that it should be widely available to state pupils across the country.

Will the Secretary of State say when he expects a significant rise in the number of grade A A-levels in maths and physics, or their IB equivalents?

An awful lot of work is going on, not least under the 10-year science and innovation plan, to get the right teachers in place and to establish science learning centres around the country that will ensure that stem subjects receive the attention that they deserve. More students are taking maths and physics, and more teachers are being recruited, but the plan is set to last 10 years precisely because we need a long-term vision. The same problems associated with encouraging youngsters to take those subjects are encountered in practically every developed country around the world. As the report from Adrian Smith a couple of years ago pointed out, mathematicians trained in universities are more likely to go to work in the City and other similar locations. It would be an enormous step forward if we could attract them into teaching, and that is increasingly what we are doing.

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State look at funding arrangements for post-16 pupils? We need to ensure that all of them have access to choice and quality, but the new diplomas mean that money will follow the pupil. Schools that want to hang on to those resources will be less inclined to encourage pupils to do vocational courses that might be available at colleges. Will he look at funding routes to ensure that schools and colleges that provide choice and quality are rewarded, and that they are not obliged merely to hang on to students?

My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. Part of the Further Education and Training Bill currently before the other place deals with the funding issue that she mentions. The diplomas resemble IBs, in that students have to undertake an extended project, but no institution on its own can deliver them. The fact that schools, sixth form colleges and FE colleges must collaborate in that provision has implications for the different levels funding that, for various reasons, have been inherited. We are trying to tackle the important point that my hon. Friend raises. When the FE Bill comes to this end of the House, she will see that an important part of the debate will be about funding.

The Secretary of State will be aware that the numbers of maths and physics A-level students have fallen by about 2,000 since 1997. Does he share the concern of the advisory committee on mathematics education, as we do, that students studying A-level maths will need to have passed both parts of the new, double-subject GCSE maths exam that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is piloting, rather than just the new basic GCSE in maths? Will he ensure that the option of studying both maths GCSEs is made an entitlement, so that we do not end up with hundreds of secondary schools in a few years’ time not offering the higher-level maths GCSE?

Again, this problem was highlighted in the Adrian Smith report and we are seeking to tackle it. The hon. Gentleman is right about the drop since 1997, but we are now seeing that situation turn around. I am willing to look at all the deliberations of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, providing that we do not sacrifice quality. That must be the central feature. There is a strand of argument that if we follow this route, it could affect quality, which is why we must be careful in taking this forward.

9. What progress has been made in ensuring that schools are offering extended activities. (119653)

13. What progress has been made on ensuring that all schools are offering extended activities. (119658)

Over 3,800 schools are providing access to the full core offer of extended services in England and 11,500 are working with their local authorities to develop extended services. This is encouraging progress towards our 2008 target of half of all primary and a third of all secondary schools providing access to extended services.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Clearly, extended schools are an opportunity for a significant improvement in the quality of life of many children. I know that the Minister is committed to play being a central part of the time that children spend in extended schools, but that is not happening across the board. Could she consider including children’s play in the prospectus for the core offer?

I am grateful for the great interest that my hon. Friend takes in this subject. I assure her that, certainly for younger children, we expect elements of the core offer of extended services to include play, both in the child care element, wrapped around the start and end of the school day, and in the variety of activities that children do. Having been to many extended schools, I know that for very young children it is sometimes hard to see how a child will distinguish between play and learning, and we have to hold on to that. Certainly I agree that for young children in particular, as well as enriching activities for older children, play is an important part of their development.

Of course play and learning are clearly linked. The Minister will know that there are examples of good practice in extended schools where, through play, imaginative and exciting activities are promoted. Does she agree that we should not just extend classroom activities, but also give children other opportunities?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We all know that better off parents and the best public schools have always provided extensive programmes of extracurricular activities. They understand that those activities help children to develop a range of attributes that are important for their enjoyment, learning and development as rounded people. That is why we have given schools £840 million plus £1.3 billion for personalised learning, so that they can give every child the extended opportunities that will help them develop educationally and in terms of the other skills that, increasingly, employers tell us they need.

Does the Minister stand by her statement last summer that parents will not mind paying £80 a week to send their children to after-school clubs? If not, what does she believe to be a reasonable amount for them to pay?

I did not make that statement, although it appeared in the press. For many parents, charging is an acceptable part of what they are willing to do for additional activities in school. Certainly for low income families, extended services—many activities of the child care element and the enrichment activities—will be covered by the tax credit system that many parents are receiving. As I go round schools I see that they are considering this issue sensitively. We want to make sure that children from disadvantaged families are not excluded from these important activities because of charging. Local authorities are working with us to see if we can make sure of that. It is important that every child has these opportunities.

10. What recent representations he received on the provision of nursery services free at the point of delivery. (119655)

Ministerial colleagues and I hold regular meetings with stakeholders to discuss early years issues and we receive a range of correspondence. Both provide an opportunity to celebrate the progress that we are making towards delivering our 10-year child care strategy and to make it clear that the free early education entitlement should continue to be just that—free at the point of delivery.

Is the Minister aware that in certain parts of the country there is a gap between the money that nurseries receive from the Government and the actual cost of nursery provision, which means that a modest top-up fee is absolutely essential? Owing to the new statutory guidelines published by the Secretary of State last year, excellent nurseries such as Flying Start at Pinewood in my constituency, which are very popular, will not be able to continue, as they will no longer be eligible for Government money because they have to charge top-up fees. That is causing great distress to local parents whose children will have nowhere else to go. What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Our view is that free means free. We do not believe in a two-tier system. I would be interested to hear the view of Opposition Front-Bench Members. Do they support the £3 billion a year that we are putting into nursery care? We are proud of the offer of 12 and a half hours’ free provision for all three and four-year-olds for 38 weeks, and we are working with local authorities to make that happen. We believe that the £3 billion a year we are giving local authorities is sufficient to provide that care for free; hence we do not believe in a two-tier system.

Child care provided by child minders is an important service for many working families in my constituency and the Sure Start centres in Little Hulton and Tyldesley have child minder networks that support 163 child minders caring for 568 children. Does my hon. Friend agree about the importance of that branch of child care, and can he tell me what commitment there is to the further development of child minder support?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are doing everything we can to support child minders in local networks. As she is aware, since 1997 we have doubled the number of child care places and there are now about 1.3 million up and down the land, but it is important that we work with children’s centres, too, to enhance that work locally. My hon. Friend will also be aware that we shall be creating 3,500 children’s centres between now and 2010.

Does not the Minister accept that the nursery sector is approaching crisis and will he join me in paying tribute to its excellent work in the provision of nursery care? However, given the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), does not the Minister appreciate that in reality nursery care is not free at the point of delivery, because nurseries have to charge fees that are higher than the rate allowed under free provision? He should not allow his party’s ideology to stand in the way of free provision, so will he tell the House that the £7.5 million for parents that the Minister for Children and Families will announce later today will actually be used for nursery provision?

I think the hon. Lady has just made it clear to the House that Opposition Front Benchers believe in a two-tier system. There is a real difference, because for us, free means free and I shall highlight what we expect to be delivered for free. The foundation stage curriculum provides communication, language, literacy, numeracy, an understanding of the world, physical, social and emotional development and creativity. That can be delivered from a budget of £3 billion a year, working through local authorities. We are investing a further £3 billion a year in children’s centres and the like, as well as £2 million a day through child tax credit. Perhaps the hon. Lady is saying that the Conservatives would invest more. Is she nodding? Would they invest more? She is not making that clear—

Order.

19. What steps he plans to take to implement the recommendations of the recent inspectorate’s report on rape cases. (119617)

All the recommendations set out in the report have been accepted. In addition, the Government will extend the number of sexual assault referral centres from 15 to 30 by the end of 2008. We are also funding a pilot of independent sexual violence advisers to help victims through the trial process, with the aim of securing justice for victims.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. My reading of the report tells me that it builds well on the lessons learned from the domestic violence courts. Does he see, as I do, the importance of the valuable lessons that we have learned in that context from looking at how specialists can help both witnesses and victims to feel supported and confident when they are giving their evidence, to make sure that we can get real convictions and success through the courts?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In the pilots in the domestic violence courts the assistance of advisers to the victims produced substantial increases in convictions, because the victims were reassured about the process and helped through something that can, in many ways, be very difficult. We can probably transfer those lessons into the area of dealing with victims of rape. I hope that the creation of 38 independent sexual violence advisers will help victims of rape by enabling them to access support services, and by providing them with people who can explain how the courts operate and perhaps take them on a visit, give them some emotional support and act as a contact point in the lead-up to a trial. I hope that that will result in more victims being able to come to court and more convictions being secured.

What is the Government’s view in regard to women who are trafficked into this country to become sex slaves and prostitutes? Should the men who use those prostitutes be charged with rape?

Rape requires an absence of consent, which depends on the particular circumstances in individual cases. If a man rapes a woman knowing that she is being forced to have sex with him, he may well be at risk of being charged with rape. However, if he is unaware that she is being forced or if he believes that there is genuine consent, the circumstances may be different. The use of trafficked women in this way is reprehensible and may well amount to other offences, but whether it is always rape is a much more difficult subject.

I appreciate my hon. and learned Friend’s reply about women who have been raped. Does he agree that there are far too many allegations of rape that never get to the courtroom door? I know what he is saying—the measures will be helpful. But more help might be needed for women to prepare their cases and to prepare them for the trauma of a trial.

My hon. Friend is quite right: we need to do much more to help victims. The Government have provided £7 million towards improving services for the victims of sexual violence, especially by extending the network of sexual assault referral centres, supporting the advisers that I have already mentioned, and funding independent sexual violence voluntary sector assistance and counselling for victims. We have also introduced 65 witness care units so that we can provide help with transport and child care to witnesses. There are now 520 rape specialist prosecutors to ensure that the right charges are brought. We need to ensure that we provide that extra help to victims.

20. What assessment he has made of the merits of the legal advice of the Attorney-General to the Cabinet being made public. (119618)

21. On what grounds Law Officers' advice to Ministers is confidential. (119620)

Robust advice from a lawyer to a client has to be based on relationship of trust and candour, and therefore advice is normally confidential. Law Officers’ advice to Ministers has similar legal privilege. That is reflected in the ministerial code. In certain cases, it is, however, right for Parliament and the public to be given an explanation of the legal basis for certain decisions that have been reached. Yesterday afternoon, we discussed some of the basis for some decisions in relation to the BAE case and the al-Yamamah contract.

This is very different from the relationship between a private client and his solicitor. Has the Solicitor-General managed to take the time to discuss the matter with his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), whose thinking is exactly the opposite of his? In the current climate, is it not vital that the Government be open about what has been said and about the legal advice that has been given on various issues, not least the war in Iraq?

There are various views about this. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), is entitled to her view, I am entitled to mine, and the Attorney-General has expressed his. If advice were open, everyone would know it, but it would be subject to constant criticism by every lawyer with a different opinion. Such a situation could lead Ministers to be less open with Law Officers, and Law Officers might be more circumspect about their advice if they knew that it was going to be made public. The Government need robust advice, not anodyne circumspection. If Ministers and Law Officers knew that advice was going to be made public, they could take that fact into account. However, we would not want a situation in which Ministers who needed good legal advice did not come and get it.

The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said:

“It is a contradiction in terms to have an accountable office-holder who is not able to publish to those whom he is accountable the advice he has given. It is not enough for government ministers to say we are advised that it is lawful. Backbenchers, let alone the wider public, want to see for themselves what the arguments are.”

Presumably the Minister of State and the Solicitor-General are both bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility. Which one of them speaks for the Government?

The Government’s view is quite clear. It is set out in the ministerial code, which sets out the position of Ministers. As I have said—[Interruption.]

Order. Let the Solicitor-General speak.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has expressed her view. She is entitled to have a view, but the view of the Government is that set out in the ministerial code. The view is clear and one that the Information Commissioner recently set out in an opinion. Let me quote what he said, because it is useful:

“The wider principle that legal advice should attract legal professional privilege is supported by very strong public interest arguments. The principle promotes the administration of justice and the ability of an individual to confide in his legal adviser, receive advice, and take appropriate action to abide by the law. The arguments for maintaining legal professional privilege are strong and therefore the circumstances in which the public interest will favour disclosure of information that is legally privileged are likely to be highly exceptional.”

Let me help my hon. and learned Friend. It is a settled precedent that the advice of the Attorney-General should be confidential. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is a former deputy to the Attorney-General, has said completely the opposite. Is she not bound by collective responsibility on the matter? Bearing in mind that it is Valentine’s day next week, on 14 February, will the Solicitor-General act as Cupid and patch up this problem between the Attorney-General and his former deputy?

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s assistance. He showed yesterday that he was able to assist Bollywood stars—he did a high-profile job in doing so. I am not quite sure that we need such publicity for this matter, although he will no doubt ensure that we get a little bit more.

It is the Government’s view that disclosing all the detailed legal advice that Ministers sometimes request from Law Officers might involve the disclosure of arguments. The Government would then have to set out those arguments, after which they would just be challenged in the courts. Such a situation might well create uncertainty about sound legal advice because both sides of an argument could often be referred to. The advice thus might well highlight Government vulnerability. I take a different view from my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, and I must say that the Government do, too.

Everyone understands that there is a tradition of privilege regarding advice given to a client. However, will the Solicitor-General talk to the Attorney-General—the evidence that the Attorney-General gave yesterday showed that he was clearly willing to think about developing the role of Law Officers—and suggest that there is a clear distinction between the advice that the Government are given when they are working out their view, which is perfectly properly confidential, and advice that gives the Government a justification for coming to Parliament to argue a case on the basis of that advice, as was the case when the decision was taken on war in Iraq? There must an argument for knowing the advice if the Government come to Parliament and say that they have been given advice that justifies what they are trying to persuade Parliament to do.

I am with the hon. Gentleman part of the way. There is an argument for setting out the legal basis on which advice has been reached. Arguably, that was done to some extent in relation to the Iraq war, but also on a range of other issues where difficult decisions, such as in the BAE example, were involved. As Law Officers, we have to come before the House to answer questions, set out the arguments and participate in a substantial debate over such decisions, so it is not the case that we are saying nothing should be discussed. What we are saying is that, if it is suggested that all sorts of legal advice on a whole range of issues should be made freely available, I would have to disagree, because it would undermine the basis of trust between Ministers and the Law Officers. There are certain circumstances in which it is appropriate to bring before the House the advice that has been given and to explain at least the basis of it.

One feels rather sorry for the Solicitor-General. If the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, represents the normal category of client within the Government with whom the Solicitor-General has to deal, he clearly has a rather harder time that I would normally have expected. Can he make one point clear? If there were to be any change, would it not have to be directed by the Prime Minister, thus making it something over which the Law Officers have no control at all? Legal professional privilege attaches not for any advantage to the Law Officers, but to those who receive the advice. Therefore the Minister of State’s comments cannot be aimed at the Law Officers; presumably, they are aimed at the Prime Minister.

It is certainly the case that legal privilege attaches to the client rather than the lawyer. That is the case across the board. It is therefore the case that it must be a decision for the client—whether it be a Minister or the Prime Minister—to take a view as to whether the advice should be published or not. It is a matter for the lawyer to give the advice in a robust and straightforward way, which is what we as Law Officers seek to do. It is a matter for the Minister to decide whether it is disclosed, but the ministerial guidance requires that the consent of the Law Officers be obtained before that is done. A better approach is for Ministers to indicate that they are seeking advice and that they are seeking for it to be made public; in those circumstances, the Law Officers would be able to take a view as to how best to put that advice.