---

Teacher Training

9. Helen Jones (Warrington, North) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the additional teacher training requirements which would result from the implementation of the Tomlinson report. [175998]

The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): The final report of the working group on 14 to 19 reform, expected in the autumn, will set out recommendations for the curriculum and qualifications for that phase of learning. The report will set out carefully phased implementation arrangements. When the Department considers the final report it will work closely with the Teacher Training Agency and other bodies on the implications of the proposals for teacher training.

Helen Jones : Does my right hon. Friend agree that all the indications are that there will be many more practical options in schools when Tomlinson is implemented, so many of our young people will be learning basic subjects such as maths and science through practical rather than theoretical work? That will necessitate major changes in the way we train our teachers, because they are not currently trained in that way. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to give serious consideration not only to future teacher training but to the in-service training that will be required, so that we can make sure that the proposals are properly implemented?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I can assure her that the issue is a priority. A departmental group has been set up to look specifically at issues arising from the implementation of the working group's proposals and the need for more practical training. This is not new: although work arising from the Tomlinson report is at a very early stage, a great deal of work is being done now in workplaces and further education colleges to ensure that teachers are properly trained.

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): If the Government are to progress the integrated 14 to 19 agenda, will that primarily be done by adding sixth forms to schools that do not have them, or by strengthening the age range of post-16 colleges; if the latter, what steps are the Government taking to remove the discrimination against post-16 colleges in determining staff salaries and funding?

Alan Johnson: We need to look at both options. Central Government have not set out in tablets of stone whether sixth forms in schools, sixth form colleges or, indeed, sixth form centres in FE colleges are the best route forward. In the strategic area reviews currently under way in all 47 learning and skills council areas we are asking providers to put the learner at the centre and decide on post-16 provision accordingly. Funding has been an issue for some time, but I can tell the hon.
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1707
 
Gentleman that the latest pay deal agreed for FE colleges will, by the end of its two-year duration, narrow that gap considerably, although it will not close it.

Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab/Co-op): Further to the excellent supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) about the centrality of science and maths in the Tomlinson review, can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that the Smith report on mathematics teaching is being implemented post-haste to address the concerns rightly expressed by my hon. Friend?

Alan Johnson: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the Smith report on mathematics is being looked at energetically—[Laughter.] You can look at something energetically, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you do anything about it. The Smith report, however, makes an important contribution to the debate, and we will publish our response in the near future.

School Support Staff

10. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): What his latest estimate is of the number of support staff working in schools; and if he will make a statement. [175999]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): In January 2004, there were 241,700 full-time equivalent support staff employed in maintained schools in England—an increase of over 100,000 since 1997. Further information is available in the House of Commons Library. In addition, teacher numbers rose by 4,000 over the past year, and there has been an increase of 28,000 since 1997. That is obviously excellent news for schools and school standards.

Dr. Iddon : The Save British Science Society has found that practical classes in science are often cancelled for a variety of reasons, including poor pupil behaviour. Will my hon. Friend look at the supply of laboratory technicians? They are not well paid, and there are few training courses available for them, yet they are essential to the setting-up and efficient and safe running of practical classes in science.

Mr. Miliband: I completely agree. When I appeared before the Science and Technology Committee a year or so ago, we spoke about this issue, and I explained that work force reform and the inclusion of a range of adults with expertise from the community could play a major role in schools. I certainly envisage a continuing increase in school support staff, including those vital laboratory technicians to whom my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Will the Minister explain to the House what plans he has to raise the status and acceptance of support staff, who are important to the proper running of our schools? They play an increasingly important role, and should be seen for what they are—an essential part of education, not an add-on extra.

Mr. Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that he agrees that it is less a
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1708
 
matter of acceptance—there is widespread acceptance of the important role that laboratory technicians can play—than of status, which is important. The work force reform agreement, which establishes clear teaching support roles for support staff, will provide them with the status that is demanded. Allied to that is a career structure for laboratory technicians that has not previously existed and a training system to support them. All those things will help to turn the acceptance that he and I think is important into the status that we also agree is vital. The first question today, which was answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, about the role of volunteer graduate students and others in the classroom, demonstrated an important adjunct to the role of laboratory technicians, drawn from universities and elsewhere.

Gap Year

11. Valerie Davey (Bristol, West) (Lab): What assessment he has made of the merits of a gap year to young people's education. [176000]

The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Alan Johnson): The Department for Education and Skills has commissioned a review of gap years, and the results of that research are due to be published at the end of July.

Valerie Davey : I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure that he is aware that the Government are considering whether to support young people from low-income families to ensure that they, too, have the opportunity to take a gap year. Will he ensure that the Department's report feeds into that, and that admissions tutors in further and higher education and people who employ young people in their gap year are made aware of the value of a gap year for young people?

Alan Johnson: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the results of the research that we have commissioned and of the young volunteer challenge pilot which she mentioned and which operates in nine educational maintenance allowance areas, will be co-ordinated and, indeed, fed into the work of the Russell commission, which was announced by the Chancellor and the Home Secretary on 17 May, giving us a comprehensive look at a range of issues. We already recognise the value of gap years, but we need to know more about what students do in their gap year, what they get out of it, and other matters that have been under-researched in the past.

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): Given that asking round the first year sixth-form students in my constituency this year has shown that many of them have been significantly put off the chance of going on a gap year because of the coming change in top-up fees, what investigations have the Government made to see what effect top-up fees will have on those who are deciding whether or not to take a gap year?

Alan Johnson: I am not surprised that some sixth-formers have been frightened to death by some of the figures floating around—

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): They are realistic.

Alan Johnson: They are not realistic at all. The suggestion the other day that students will end up with
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1709
 
debts of £40,000 is incredible and wholly unhelpful. In reality the gap year issue is different now from in 1998–99, when fees were introduced. Then students who were applying for university did not know that there would be a fee to pay; now there is three years' notice. Given that the current situation is payment up front—not on graduation—no maintenance grant, no 25-year debt forgiveness and a smaller loan, it is questionable whether students would decide to take a gap year, especially as in 2006 they will get the benefit of all those proposals. We do not intend to legislate in respect of the situation. Universities have the power to deal with any problems that they foresee.

Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con): This is yet another example of the Government saying one thing and doing another. Clearly the Minister has not talked to sixth-formers recently. If he does a straw poll of them, he will find that many of those leaving in 2005 are saying that they will not take a gap year to avoid top-up fees. Does the Minister accept that that will cause chaos in the universities admissions system in 2005 and represents a genuine injustice to many young people who for financial reasons will not take a gap year and will lose out on the kind of opportunity about which the Chancellor has been waxing lyrical this week?

Alan Johnson: I talk to sixth-formers all the time. These proposals are still subject to parliamentary approval; the Bill is still going through the House. If, in the expectation of the happy day coming, the Bill receives Royal Assent, we can do an effective job of explaining the deal to students and their parents, many of whom believe that they will pay £3,000 up front, there is no maintenance grant and there is not an increase in the threshold for repayment. I have not come across a single student whose decision to go to university has been affected. I agree that there is an issue about whether to take a gap year, but once the situation is fully explained, there will not be a gap year problem. Certainly if it is foreseen, universities, who will have the opportunity under variable fees to set a lower fee to avoid a gap year problem, have that solution in their own hands, rather than us legislating, as the hon. Gentleman proposes, to remove that money from the universities and prevent them from having that choice. We have taken a balanced approach to a currently perceived problem.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Is not the missing ingredient in this debate the role of the parents? Is it not unquestionably in the interests of the majority of parents to encourage their young people to take a gap year, thereby making themselves £1,175 a year better off? Once parents start to understand that by deferring entry to 2006 they will have an enormous tax cut, attitudes to gap years will change.

Alan Johnson: I am told that youngsters today do not listen to their parents. Many of us will hope that they do on this occasion. There is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend says, not just in respect of parental responsibility, but in respect of students recognising that if they enrol in 2006 they will get a bigger loan, a deferred fee, a £2,700 non-repayable grant, a bursary of up to £4,000 from the university and 25-year debt
 
27 May 2004 : Column 1710
 
forgiveness as well as all the other proposals that we will have already introduced, such as a higher threshold. It is questionable whether there will be a gap year problem. We cannot be absolutely confident that there will not be one, but once we have got the message across in the next three years there will be a change of perception. I hope very much that we can deal with this issue.

---