---

Schools (Health and Safety)

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

The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): Like all local education authorities, Coventry LEA has health
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 847
 
and safety responsibility for its secondary and primary schools. It formally audits its schools' compliance with the law and routinely provides advice. It considers and acts on returns made to the health and safety team. In 2000, Ofsted reported that the LEA had a clearly defined health and safety policy monitored by members and officers.

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

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

National Literacy Strategy

4. Mr. Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): If he will make a statement on the national literacy strategy. [187697]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): The introduction of the national literacy strategy in 1998 has brought about dramatic improvements in standards across the ability range. This year, a record 77 per cent. of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 in English. Compared with 1997, there are now around 84,000 more 11-year-olds achieving the expected level for their age in English.

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

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

Mr. Peter Pike (Burnley) (Lab): Does my hon. Friend agree that Rosewood school in Burnley, which he visited earlier this year, is an example of a new primary school showing what is being done throughout Burnley as a result of this Government's policies, which are, through
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 848
 
the literacy strategy and in many other ways, delivering much better education than under the previous Tory Government?

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

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

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

I return the challenge to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The Conservative party has talked about abandoning targets. Is he saying that we should not aim to get the majority of our 11-year-olds to achieve the expected level so that they are equipped to go on to secondary school?

The 14-point improvement in the past seven years is remarkable because the greatest improvement has happened in schools that served the most deprived communities. That is a cause for celebration, certainly for Labour Members.

University Access Agreements

5. Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): How many university access agreements have been agreed; and if he will make a statement. [187698]

The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): We expect that institutions will start to submit their access agreements for the approval of the director of fair access later this autumn.

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

Mr. Clarke: I think that I can offer that reassurance but I shall examine the specific case that my hon. Friend raised and write to him about the detail of the Learning
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 849
 
and Skills Council's proposals. I am not familiar with the details that he mentioned but I am happy to consider them and come back to him.

Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to consider the impact on access to higher education of the alternative funding plans that the Conservative party published yesterday, especially—

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

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

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

We are in close discussion with colleagues in Scotland about the issues. We accept the devolution settlement, under which Scotland makes its own policy on such matters. We also accept that it is important to have a proper dialogue so that the consequences can be properly considered. There is dialogue about those questions at political and official level. As my hon. Friend knows, the higher education and political systems in Scotland are currently actively considering them.

Higher Education

6. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury) (LD): If he will make a statement on the proportion of 18 to 20-year-olds applying for higher education entry this year. [187699]

7. Mr. Colin Challen (Morley and Rothwell) (Lab): What the latest figures are for higher education applications; and if he will make a statement. [187700]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Ivan Lewis): The latest figures published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service at the beginning of the month showed that 466,222 people had applied through the UCAS system to UK universities and colleges for 2004 entry. That represents an increase of 2.8 per cent. on the same time last year. The number of people accepted so far represents an increase of 3.4 per cent.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept, as the Prime Minister did in his letter to me of 6 August, that over the past year the percentage increase in the number of English student applicants under 21 has fallen as compared to the increase in the cohort of that age group? Can he give any reason for that—as the Prime Minister did not—other than the one I suggested: that people were being put off by the top-up fees with which
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 850
 
they are now threatened? Does he agree that if there is a fear putting people off applying to university, an increase in the interest rate to a commercial rate would only make the position far worse?

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

Individual young people will want to continue to enter higher education. The Liberal Democrats' policy is different from ours. While they prefer to increase subsidies to graduates, we prefer to prioritise provision for under-fives. Those are the real foundations of a fair and successful society. The Liberal Democrats are opportunists; we face up to the real challenges and choices facing our country. I am content for the British people to decide which approach is appropriate for a responsible political party.

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

Maths and physics are two key subjects. Since the publication of Professor Adrian Smith's report on post-14 mathematics education, what progress has been made in persuading more young people—at an early age, when they are choosing school subjects—to take up maths and physics? When the Government respond to the report from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, will Ministers involve people from the private sector—it has happened before: for instance, in March we met members of Pintronics plc—in encouraging young people to take up those subjects?

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

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

Mr. Lewis: It was the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), a former higher education Minister, who
 
9 Sept 2004 : Column 851
 
described the policies announced this week by the Conservative party as regressive—almost as regressive as the return of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to the Shadow Cabinet.

If we want dividing lines, we should bear in mind that those on the lowest earnings take the longest to repay and therefore, under the Conservatives' proposals, will pay the most. The worst effect is on those taking a career break, for example to start a family. The hon. Gentleman should speak to his Front Bench more often, because he is, I believe, one of the more sensible members of his party. Let me give him an example. A medium earner, such as a teacher, with a loan of £10,000 would repay something approaching £30,000, whereas a higher earner working in the City—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will stop the Minister.

The Minister should stop now, and he should refrain from referring to Conservative policy. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] I will tell the House why. The Minister should give an account of his stewardship, not the stewardship of the Opposition. We will leave it at that.

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

I look forward to campaigning on the doorstep in the next general election to abolish tuition fees, but as I listen to the Government covering themselves with plaudits about the education system, I ask myself one question, to which I shall be very interested to hear the Minister's response. Can he explain why, during the summer recess, almost eight years into a Labour Government, the leading and eminent historian Dr. David Starkey warned that some students need remedial teaching in basic literacy, and that there is a growing need for four-year degrees to make up for the poor quality of first-year undergraduates?

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

---