To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on the sums available in the new financial year for capital expenditure on buildings for United Kingdom universities.

Provision for capital expenditure on United Kingdom university buildings forms an integral part of the respective Education Departments' higher education capital programmes.

I thank the Minister for that reply and have pleasure in welcoming him to the Dispatch Box.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks. I apologise to the House for having exchanged only too recently the relative Trappism of the Whip's Office so I have not yet achieved the fluency and elegance which I hope is appropriate to my new Department.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the expected cost of the study being made into student incomes.

The estimated cost of the student income and expenditure survey is £200,000, including VAT.

I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post and wish him well in these somewhat troubled times.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.

I also welcome the Minister to his new post and can assure him that he was always extremely fluent behind the scenes. I suggest that one way of getting funds to students as money in their pockets would be to press ahead with making the membership of the students union voluntary. I see no reason why the students at my local university should pay £16,000 for a rent strike and £45,000 for sabbaticals and various other things that they may not wish to have.

I know my hon. Friend of old and I am very grateful for her personal remarks. I shall take most carefully into account the suggestion she has made, but it may be for another occasion.

In the spirit of welcome for the Minister, may I ask him if his survey will include the case of Neil Bennett, a mature student of Witney, Oxfordshire, whose details I have already sent to the Department? Mr. Bennett faces the imminent decision between continuing to study for his degree and losing his home and furniture, for which he has worked eight years, and abandoning his studies, returning to the dole and keeping his home. How can students be expected to work and study under pressures of that kind?

Certain numbers of students always suffer hardship. Indeed, I have two student daughters, one of whom graduated this morning, so I have some personal advisers on student hardship. If the hon. Gentleman has submitted a particular case to the Department, I can assure him that it will be fully and carefully considered.

Mr. Fabricant.

I am very surprised, Madam Speaker.

We all are.

It is Christmas.

Does my hon. Friend realise that when I was at university, which was only a very short while ago, I and my colleagues had to take out loans from banks such as Lloyds and Barclays at very high interest rates? Does he not realise how much I would have welcomed the opportunity to take out student loans issued by the Government at low rates of interest?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His problem is different from mine; it just seems to me that it was only a short time ago that I was at university. Certainly, at that time, finance was expensive. Student loans are excellent value for money, because there is no interest other than the rate of inflation, and that is very low at the moment. Many students have used those loans when they have needed and chosen to.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make an official visit to Essex in order to discuss with parents and teachers the future funding and levels of education in the county's schools.

My right hon. Friend hopes in due course to visit all parts of the country, including Essex. I had the opportunity to talk to teachers from schools in Chelmsford and Basildon and county councillors and local education authority officers during my visit to the county earlier this year. The funding of schools and the level of service provided is primarily a matter for the Essex local education authority.

What advice will the Secretary of State give to the thousands of parents in Essex who have received letters from their children's headteachers saying that their schools are facing a funding crisis and that they do not have enough resources to fulfil the requirements of the national curriculum, particularly in respect of books, equipment and, in some cases, teachers? Who is to blame? Is it the Conservative-controlled county council or the Secretary of State, and, above all else, what does he intend to do about it?

For some reason, Madam Speaker, the good will seems to have evaporated. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is, of course, the local education authority which, like all authorities throughout the country, is responsible for making local decisions about how resources are allocated to schools and as between primary and secondary schools for those schools which remain within local education authority control. For grant-maintained schools, of which I am delighted to say there are a growing number in Essex, the matter is quite different and has to be treated differently. I am sure that Essex will look to its own resources, make its own decisions and he accountable to parents throughout the county. I am satisfied that the funding of education in Essex is perfectly satisfactory, as it is in the rest of the country.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if he comes to Essex he will find the second highest number of grant-maintained schools in any local education authority area? Is he also aware that his own Department's school performance tables show some schools in Essex achieving some of the highest standards in the whole of the country? Will he therefore congratulate both the governors and the teachers of Essex schools on the excellent results they have achieved and on their wisdom in taking maximum advantage of the Government's education reforms?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in rejoicing at the number of schools which, through free parental balloting, have decided to opt for grant-maintained status. It is a very encouraging trend which we hope will continue. The figures that he has given to the House show that it is for local education authorities, heads, governors, teachers and everyone involved to ensure that they get the best possible value for money and that the relationship between resources and results, which is often alleged by some hon. Members, does not exist and probably never will.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding the administrative work load on teachers as a result of measures to implement the national curriculum and testing.

My right hon. Friend has received about 75 letters about this matter since the beginning of the new school year in September.

That figure does not surprise me. Although I and, I think, all my colleagues vigorously support the Government's objective of raising standards in schools, will my hon. Friend make a new year resolution to ensure that his Department helps the Government's drive against excessive bureaucracy, regulation, red tape and reams of white paper? Is he aware that the burden of paperwork on teachers is not a six-week wonder but has been reported to me on my school visits throughout my time in the House and is becoming a great concern? One hears of glossy brochures being introduced for the curriculum or testing, but, almost before there is time for teachers to study them, they are withdrawn and replaced by new ones. Will he work hard with his officials to deal with that matter?

Of course I share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently about excessive burdens of administration, bureaucracy or paperwork in schools or anywhere else in the public sector. However, I am sure that he will understand that it is very much in everyone's interest that we get the definition of the national curriculum correct, that we are able to review it where necessary and that the National Curriculum Council, in particular—that independent body which we have charged with the very important task of defining the national curriculum —is free to advise teachers, heads and parents on the curriculum, its content and development as it sees fit. I will ensure that the National Curriculum Council is made aware of my hon. Friend's points so that we can get a firm grip on the matters about which he expresses concern.

Will the Minister convey my welcome to his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education on taking up his new appointment? Will he confirm that among the representations that he has received about this matter have been those from teachers of English who are worried about the rapid introduction of the key stage 3 standard assessment tasks for English? Will he advise the House whether it is likely that he will accede to their requests for a postponement of the introduction of those tests for one year?

No. When a difficulty arises it is always tempting for some people to go for a postponement, but that will not help. We are concerned above all to establish a level of quality in education, to define the framework within which it should operate and to give teachers the maximum support to help them define the needs of pupils and to be better able to deal with those needs. We are, of course, most concerned to ensure that those developments take place properly. They are carefully piloted and monitored, and we shall undertake to work with the School Examinations and Assessment Council and others involved to ensure that the assessments and tests are introduced with the maximum effectiveness and the minimum of trouble.

Does my hon. Friend recall that there was almost universal hostility from the teaching profession to the national curriculum when it was first introduced? Does he recognise that there is now tremendous support for it in all schools, but that there is also some anxiety about key stage 3, in not only English but technology? Will he at least consider a pilot scheme for a year so that teachers can get hold of the necessary paperwork for the key stage 3 exam?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's very important point. It is remarkable that when we announce radical new, measures to improve quality in education the knee-jerk reaction, certainly from members of the Opposition and often from others involved in education, is routine opposition. When they are introduced and prove to be workable, successful and helpful to parents and pupils, fortunately many people are prepared to take a different view and to support them. I hope that that will continue. I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend expresses. We are well aware of them and I give my hon. Friend the undertaking that, wherever possible, we will ensure that such matters are dealt with properly when the new tests are introduced. That has been the case in the past, and it will continue to be so in future.

Does not the Minister realise that the national curriculum is overloaded and far too prescriptive and is, therefore, not workable or successful as he implied a minute ago? Does he also recognise that the burden on teachers is made worse by the constant chopping and changing at the instigation of Ministers?

The hon. Lady must be careful not to eliminate the possibility of review and change where appropriate. When I talk to teachers, as I do often, as do my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State, teachers do not say, "Don't change anything in the curriculum." They say, "If there is a justified need for review and for change, please will you do it?" That is the response that we are prepared to give. That is why the National Curriculum Council is currently involved in a review of the primary curriculum to assess the kind of concerns raised by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Its interim advice will be with us very soon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the teaching profession has made a magnificent effort to implement the national curriculum and the testing that goes with it because it believes in the national curriculum and sees the high value of the testing'?

Yes. It is a delight to see my hon. Friend in his usual place, full of vim and vigour as always and expressing his knowledgeable interest in matters educational. My hon. Friend is right and he knows so much about the matter. The teaching profession has responded magnificently to the challenges that we have laid down. Teachers are getting on with the national curriculum; they are enthusiastic about it and want to see it work. Our job in the Department for Education, like the job of the NCC and the School Examinations and Assessment Council is to work together with the profession to ensure that we all serve the interests of pupils.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what meetings of institutions of the European Community Education Ministers have attended during the United Kingdom presidency to date.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State chaired the Council of Ministers of Education on 27 November. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) represented the United Kingdom. The previous day my right hon. Friend, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, had appeared before the European Parliament's Committee for Culture, Youth, Education and the Media.

I am grateful to the Minister and I, too, welcome him to the Dispatch Box. Will he give the House an assurance that at every meeting of the Council of Education Ministers a Scottish Minister will be present to represent the separate, distinct and, in my view, better Scottish education?

It is remarkable that, as I understand it, it has not been normal practice hitherto for Scottish Education Ministers to attend. I understand that it was most successful on this occasion and I very much hope that it will help and happen again in the future.

I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. With regard to consultations in Europe, how usual is it for the President of the European Council to meet Members of the European Parliament?

It is certainly not unusual for them to meet. However, it was distinctive on this occasion because the presidency and my right hon. Friend briefed the European Parliament the day before the Council meeting. I am sure that the exchange that evening was successful and fruitful and that it contributed to a very successful tone in the Council discussions the next day.

Why is it that, after 13 years of this Government, half a dozen Secretaries of State for Education and numerous reforms and Education Acts, Britain still lags a long way behind the rest of western Europe in the number of 16 to 18–year-olds who stay in full-time education or vocational training? Why do we have one of the worst trained work forces in western Europe? Will we have the same complacency from the new Minister that we have had from his predecessors over those 13 years?

I have to say that I agree with one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks in which he made a reasonable conjunction between education and training. That conjunction is important, but the hon. Gentleman is way off beam in every other respect. We are expanding the numbers in further education and training much faster than most of our counterparts. We attach the greatest importance to further education and training, and we shall continue to build on such programmes.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is his target for the number of primary schools to obtain grant-maintained status by the end of 1993.

I hope that as many parents as possible will consider the potential benefits of self-governing status for their primary schools.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some urban primary schools, having considered grant-maintained status, have decided against it because they are concerned about the future provision of their special needs and do not believe that grouping is the answer for them? Will he embark on a new information campaign aimed at the governors of all primary schools and secondary modern schools, telling them of the distinct advantages of grant-maintained status for their schools and the amazing results that have been achieved by those schools that have opted for grant-maintained status?

I am grateful for the opportunity to reassure my hon. Friend that more than two thirds of grant-maintained schools have increased their provision for special educational needs above the level previously provided directly by the local education authority. About 186 primary schools have balloted on whether to become grant maintained. In eight out of 10 cases—exactly the same figure for secondary schools—the result has been a resounding yes.

When that petition for opting out takes place on the ballot, no restriction is placed on the lists of parents' names and the uses of those lists for commercial or other purposes. Should not that matter be examined? Should names be generally used for any purpose other than that for which they were given?

I am much more worried about the apparently illicit way in which some local education authorities have got lists of names from schools and used them to incite others to circulate intimidatory literature to stop schools from going grant-maintained. Needless to say, Derbyshire is in the lead.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his assessment of the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.

High spending is no guarantee of good examination results. Some authorities obtain good results at much lower cost than others. I have looked at the relationship between the percentage of pupils in each LEA achieving five or more A to C grades at GCSE, and find that some of the highest-spending authorities gain relatively poor results.

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does he agree that the publication of school examination results and other research confirms that the level of achievement for schools with children from similar backgrounds is widely different? Is it not time that schools improved their performance, rather than seeking excuses for failure?

Indeed, schools in inner-city areas, such as Mulberry school in Tower Hamlets, Stockland Green school in Birmingham and Archbishop Blanche school in Toxteth, Liverpool, have shown that schools can perform well in apparently adverse circumstances. We should all look to those schools as beacons of excellence. I congratulate them, and other schools in those areas should draw lessons from them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that about three years ago a study carried out by York and Sheffield universities concluded that when poverty and social deprivation were taken into consideration the results of most inner-city schools were as good as those of schools anywhere?

It seems very odd to me that the Labour party, which historically has liked measuring statistics of poverty, housing need or alleged social deprivation, so much dislikes the Government's pioneering radical measurement of school performance.

In rejecting the Opposition's apparent obsession with equating spending with standards, does my right hon. Friend agree that time and again reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate have shown that the factors that lead to higher standards are high expectations from teachers and parents and some investment from parents? Does he agree that the investment that parents make in grant-maintained schools through their participation in balloting is likely to lead to such investment and, therefore, higher standards?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I would only add to those factors the leadership qualities of the headteacher, whoever she or he might be. A correlation seems to be emerging in some areas between poor examination performance, high public expenditure and a high level of surplus school places. I shall investigate that. Those three factors linked together seem to point to poor management of public resources and hence bad education of our children.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the publication of school examination results generally reflects the social and economic make-up of England and Wales? His reference to beacon schools in inner-city areas is worth examining in great detail. In deprived areas, where examination results are generally bad, will he make efforts to ensure that proper funding and good advice are available to enable teachers in hard-pressed schools to achieve even better results than at present?

The hon. Gentleman must surely have noticed that I took the trouble a few moments ago to praise three named schools, one in a Liberal-controlled area and two in Labour-controlled areas, which have performed exceptionally well. Even at the season of good will, I find it hard to take the assumption that because a little boy or a little girl comes from a difficult background—perhaps from parents who are not well off and in an area with high unemployment—we should automatically have low expectations. That shows just how out of touch the Labour party is in the 1990s with the aspirations of ordinary working people in Britain.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps he is taking to ensure an increase of the information available to parents about their children's education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to make more information available to parents following publication of the examination results tables.

I shall shortly be publishing, LEA by LEA, the assessment results for seven-year-olds and expenditure on primary pupils. Under the parents charter, the comparative tables of school examination results issued this year will be extended next year to include national curriculum assessment results, truancy rates and information about what happens to pupils over school leaving age when they go on to their new careers.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in my constituency and throughout Britain the results have been greatly welcomed? I have to say that his Department's mark for accuracy has come out as "could do better", but that has not detracted from the usefulness of the exercise. For the first time eyes have been opened to the relative performance of schools. In addition to the other information that my right hon. Friend proposes to publish, will he consider including results in other public examinations such as British Amateur Gymnastics Association tests for athletics, swimming awards, music examinations, and so on, so that we can get a clear picture of the child in the round at individual schools?

We certainly intend to do all that we can to publish more information, which enables parents to make a sound judgment about the schools to which their children go or may go. We hear a lot from the Opposition, and in a few days' time, in an effort to be helpful, I shall publish results of the tests on seven-year-olds for last summer and further information including, for example, public expenditure per head on primary school pupils.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his welcome announcement that more information is to be made available, including the publication of school prospectuses, shows that the claim that the publication of examination results alone may mean nothing is one which can be fairly squashed? Does he also agree that that shows that socialist claims that parents could not or would not want to understand information about their children's education is nothing more than patronising socialist waffle?

My hon. Friend from Derbyshire is absolutely right. It is very patronising to treat parents in that way. What amazes me is how the Opposition continue to fail to understand the aspirations of ordinary working people. In the 1970s and 1980s, they did not understand the aspirations to home ownership—[Interruption.] The chattering classes who inhabit the Labour Benches these days do not understand the aspirations of ordinary working people to good education for their children, hence the publication of the league tables:

Will the Secretary of State not review his somewhat arbitrary limit of five O-levels on one occasion as the criterion of performance in any school? What has he to say about the slow-learning pupil for whom I was once responsible, who got one O-level in the summer, two more the next Christmas and two the following summer? That pupil could not possibly have got five O-levels at one time at the first attempt. What does the Secretary of State have to say about the performance of that school and that pupil?

I would not cast any aspersions on the performance of the teacher involved, and it was probably a triumph for the slow learner. In the White Paper we said that it might be easy for academically gifted children to get a number of O-levels, but that a small number of qualifications may represent a triumph for other boys or girls and for the teachers who help them to get those exam results.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that there might be problems with league tables in relation to the publication of A-level results because the standards set by schools for accepting pupils in A-level classes may vary considerably? Some schools lay down minimum GCSE result requirements while others have a more open policy. Is there not a danger that schools will be discouraged from accepting pupils in A-level classes because they fear that when the results are published they may not be so good? Will the Secretary of State at least consider revising the method of publishing A-level results?

I shall treat the hon. Gentleman's question seriously, reflect on it and write to him. It is important to bear in mind that most professional teachers who take on a child who is perhaps a slow learner—such as the pupil mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—or has special educational needs, realise that they represent a considerable professional challenge. I applaud teachers who do such excellent work and the good results produced by teachers who help pupils with special educational needs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the broad welcome by parents for the publication of examination results, we can clearly develop the system further by including such matters as vocational qualifications in years to come, as so many Conservative Members have requested?

My hon. Friend is right. I can announce to the House that next year we shall publish results of vocational qualifications. I hope that that will be greeted rather more warmly by the Labour Front Bench than the publication of tables which they condemned on the day of publication but six days later they had done a complete U-turn and were in favour of the tables.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what recent representations he has received in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.

My right hon. Friend regularly receives representations from parents, teachers and others in relation to the national curriculum in primary schools.

Does the Minister accept that many primary school teachers, while recognising the basic objective of the national curriculum, believe that they do not have sufficient time to listen to young children read or to encourage them to read purely for pleasure? Will he ensure that the national curriculum is less rigid and allows for a slightly more flexible approach to reading?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is one reason why the National Curriculum Council is conducting its current review. In my experience, some teachers share the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, while others seem to have been better able to accommodate the demands of the national curriculum—we must balance the one against the other. I do not want us to rush into changes, and we are keeping an open mind as to how much things may have to be changed to accommodate the difficulties mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is grossly unfair to children that they are not able to obtain good results in the three Rs, which are so important for secondary education and future jobs? Surely that is the purpose of the national curriculum.

That is, indeed, one of the important purposes of the national curriculum. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured by the great emphasis that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State have placed on setting the highest possible standards for mastering the basics of education so that young people may be better suited to maximise their educational potential. All education Ministers are, and will continue to be, concerned about that.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received regarding cleaning standards in schools since competitive tendering became operative.

The Department receives representations from time to time on various compulsory competitive tendering issues. I am not aware of any recent correspondence specifically relating to school cleaning.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the current contracts given out for the cleaning of schools are totally inadequate? The standards of one of the schools in my constituency, Herdings junior and nursery infants, are not up to scratch. That is not a criticism of the school cleaners; it reflects the fact that the local authority did not have enough money to include better specifications in the contract. Will the Minister review the position of schools and, I hope, improve it?

Where appropriate, it is for local education authorities to set standards for themselves and put the work out to tender based on those standards. They have responsibility for monitoring whether the standards are being achieved. The hon. Gentleman should return to his local education authority and satisfy himself as to whether it is setting proper standards, tendering properly and monitoring the achievement of standards in schools.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that compulsory competitive tendering has saved local authorities a lot of money? Should not education budgets be used to educate children rather than to preserve jobs in the National Union of Public Employees?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Recent research by the Institute of Local Government Studies shows that cost savings of about 6 per cent. have resulted from compulsory competitive tendering for local authority services while providing the same or higher standards. I trust that local education authorities will be considering the matter carefully to see whether they can redeploy into education the resources saved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has for further consultation on national curriculum tests for seven-year-olds.

We shall consult in the spring, as usual, on the next assessment order governing tests and assessments for seven-year-olds in 1994.

Will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Scotland, given that the Scottish Office has recently announced a system of testing which is based much more heavily on teacher assessment? If that system, which is overwhelmingly supported by parent-teacher associations, is good enough for children in Scotland, why is it not good enough or appropriate for children in England and Wales?

I would he the last person to deny the validity of the adoption of different approaches, where appropriate, in Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish education. One of the great glories of the United Kingdom is that we can take different approaches to these matters when we think it appropriate. The timing of the tests in England is dictated by the Education Reform Act 1988. Scottish Office colleagues have taken the view that, although the principle of testing is accepted, the timing may be more appropriately judged by those involved in schools. I believe that that is right for my colleagues north of the border.

Does the Minister agree that most seven-year-olds very much enjoy doing their assessment tests? Will he congratulate the primary school teachers who have made the national curriculum work so effectively in particular, my constituent Anthony Wates, headteacher of Tavistock primary school, who is on the National Curriculum Council?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. We must not forget that if the tests are properly applied and if the pupils are given proper leadership and inspiration by teachers, young pupils of all ages enjoy taking the tests and find them useful and stimulating. In some of the pilot tests carried out last year, it was found that in many schools attendance on the day of the tests was higher than normal. That is ample and eloquent testimony to my hon. Friend's point.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall he having further meetings later today.

May I tell my right hon. Friend that taxpayers in my constituency—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Lady is finding herself in a rowdy House because we expect a question from her.

May I let my right hon. Friend be aware that taxpayers in my constituency of Erewash and across the country are delighted that he successfully defended the rebate for Britain at the Edinburgh summit? May I also congratulate him—

No.

Order. The House should have a little more tolerance. I am sure that the hon. Lady has taken to heart what I have said and will try again.

Will my right hon. Friend also accept our congratulations on so successfully holding down the increase in the Community budget which was sought by the European Commission and some European leaders?

I can sense that it is a Christmas House today. My hon. Friend is right: it was vital that we defended the rebate, worth £2 billion a year. It is now protected until the end of the century. It was an issue on which our European partners knew that we were not prepared to compromise. It is fortunate that we were not represented by the Labour party. The shadow Chancellor would have negotiated on the rebate, and the Leader of the Opposition would have signed up the complete Delors 2 package, costing us hundreds of millions of pounds.

In view of the appalling suffering being endured by the inhabitants of Sarajevo and other besieged towns and cities in Bosnia, will the Prime Minister join the French and United States Governments in urging the speedy adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution to enforce the no-fly zone over Bosnia?

There has been a great deal of comment about enforcing the no-fly zone. The issue is being discussed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe meeting in Stockholm and it will be discussed further at the London conference in Geneva tomorrow and the North Atlantic Council on Thursday. The imposition of a no-fly zone by the United Nations has already had the effect of stopping combat flights by the Serbs; so far as we can see, there are still breaches by helicopters and small aircraft, but no clear evidence of their being used for combat purposes.

While appreciating the concern that the Prime Minister expresses for the humanitarian efforts, and for the safety of our own troops on the ground, does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there is a growing feeling in this country, as there is in the international community, that there is no point in a no-fly zone which can be defied with such impunity? The time has come for effective international action. I hope that the Prime Minister will take the message from the House that he would be widely supported if Britain supported the other countries in making the resolution effective.

We have never ruled out the possible need to enforce the zone, but, with our allies and partners, we must consider very carefully how the zone is to be enforced and what the effect of enforcement would be on the maintenance of humanitarian effort, which none of us wishes to see end, either this side of Christmas or long after, and on the safety of our troops. Other measures may be brought to bear, and those are all being considered.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the great success of the Edinburgh summit, we have seen a further example of European co-operation—the successful agreement on the development of the European fighter aircraft? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that that aircraft is vital to Britain's defence interests, and is good news for the defence industry and for the 40,000 people throughout the country whose jobs are closely associated with the project?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement reached by the four Defence Ministers on 10 December means that the development of a new fighter—to be known as Eurofighter 2000—will go ahead. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on his part in ensuring that. The agreement is very good news for our aerospace industry and for everyone who works in it. It will also mean that the Royal Air Force will have a combat aircraft with the capabilities required in the first quarter of the next century.

Can the Prime Minister give miners and their families an assurance that not one of the pits recently closed will be prevented from reopening by failure to maintain them while the review takes place? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, what value can we place on the review?

The right hon. Gentleman can place great value on the review. It is open, and we have made it perfectly clear that it is open. It is clear, too, that British Coal is perfectly aware of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to maintain the pits during the interim period, and I believe that it is doing that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Milton Keynes.

I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country, and I hope to include Buckinghamshire among them.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past 12 months the private sector has invested a record £374 million in Milton Keynes, helping to create 6,500 new jobs? Is that not an excellent example of something that we are seeing throughout the country—a fully justified growth in business confidence?

I think that we shall see a good deal more of that in the months to come—not least because of the very good news on inflation, which on Friday fell to 3 per cent. We also had figures today to show that factory gate inflation is at its lowest level for a generation. That is the clearest possible sign that we have yet seen that we are winning the battle against inflation, which is vital to industry, commerce, investment and jobs. It is precisely because of those successes that we now have the lowest interest rates in the European Community and a very solid platform for industrial recovery next year.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

As Christmas approaches and we witness the crisis of despair among the homeless not only in London but in cities such as Swansea, will the Prime Minister recognise that his vision of a classless society is rapidly receding and that our failure to embrace a growing underclass is beginning to undermine the very basis of Britain's being considered a democracy?

The hon. Gentleman may not know that the latest count by voluntary organisations last month found a drop of nearly 60 per cent. in the number of rough sleepers since the Government's initiative some time ago. The hon. Gentleman appears not to have heard about that initiative: with Government funding of nearly £100 million, it is providing new hostel places in central London and 3,000 more permanent places are being provided or planned. More action is being taken to help the homeless now than has been taken for many years.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Housing and Urban Development Bill, especially the parts that establish rent-to-mortgage schemes? Does he agree that it will create an excellent low-risk opportunity for young people to begin the process of owning their homes?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We certainly want to continue to expand home ownership for young people and others. [Interruption.] Labour Members heckle, but then they have fought all our reforms of choice and ownership, time after time. They fought the right to buy, and now they are fighting the rent-tomortgage scheme. The fact is that they do not trust people to make their own decisions about housing. They do not want people to be independent of the state, but we do: we believe in independence, home ownership and low taxation. That is why we are here and they are there.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher has been gallivanting through the United States of America, rubbishing Her Majesty's Government's presidency of the European Community and making huge sums of money out of it? Will he persuade her to give some of that money to the miners, who have been cruelly deprived—

Order. I hardly think that someone's travels have much to do with the Prime Minister. I think that we had better move on now.

I welcome the agreement secured by my right hon. Friend in Edinburgh, which will lead to the immediate start of negotiations for the entry into the Community of Austria, Sweden and Finland. Does he agree that the British agenda is now an agenda for the whole of the EC?

I agree: that is increasingly the position. We have achieved a significant turnaround in attitudes to the enlargement of the Community. At Edinburgh we won agreement for the immediate start of negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden, and for negotiations with Norway before too long. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we also won support for the eventual membership of the Visegrad countries. When I first proposed that in Paris less than two years ago, very few people supported it; now it is Community policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

The treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, of which the United Kingdom is a depository state, remains the cornerstone of international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Ten states have become parties in 1992, bringing the total to 155. We continue to work for universal adherence to the treaty, and for its indefinite extension in 1995.

Can the House have a clear, unambiguous statement—given the contrary views of Mr. John Gordon, who was head of the Foreign Office nuclear energy unit from 1986 to 1988—that at no time did Britain infringe either article 1 or any other article of the 1968 non-proliferation treaty in relation to the sale of arms to Iraq or other countries in the middle east?

It is Government policy to meet all our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Allegations that the United Kingdom may not have done so will be matters for Lord Justice Scott, and I think that that had better wait for his inquiry. I am aware of Iraqi claims. They are matters for Lord Justice Scott to investigate.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 15 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's reports that 1 million more free eye tests were given in 1991 than in 1990, and that there were 7 million more private tests? Is that not a demonstration of the success of the Health Secretary's publicity policy on free tests?

Indeed, it is. In this, as in much else to do with the national health service, the Labour party got it wrong in everything that it said at the time. It peddled stories that people would not have eyesight tests, but the reality is now clear: more people than ever before are doing so. They know that there is no purpose in listening to the Labour party on the national health service —it is always wrong.