To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he plans to meet the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the places available in universities for students leaving school in the current year with appropriate A-level qualifications.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions he has had with principals and vice-chancellors about the funding of universities.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education is unable to be on the Front Bench for oral questions this afternoon.

Has the Minister noted the concern of the universities and university authorities that, this year, some well-qualified young people with good A-level grades will not he able to go to university? If that assumption is true—I ask him to confirm or reject it—what message does that give to young people who have worked hard but cannot get into university? What message does it give to young people when we need well-trained and well-educated youngsters?

The first message that I would give young people is to remind them that student numbers, on a full-time equivalent basis, have expanded by 46 per cent. during the past four years. We have more students and a higher proportion of our young people in higher education than ever before. There is some consolidation at present, which is an opportunity for universities to catch breath after rapid expansion and to assert the importance of the full quality of entry standards, to which we attach considerable importance.

Will the Minister confirm that the Higher Education Funding Council is encouraging universities not to take arts students this year, and that it is spending up to £3·5 million encouraging them not to do so, as a kind of academic set-aside? What does that say for the Government's policy towards broad education across a range of subjects?

It is difficult to please everyone on such subjects, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the changes in tuition fees earlier this year referred to expansion at the margin beyond the funded number of places. There is no question of prohibiting people from going for arts or humanities subjects—far from it. There is a higher level of participation in those subjects than ever before. If the funding council, which has discretion in the matter, decides to set aside a proportion of money to meet the particular problems of institutions that have expanded so quickly, that is its decision, but I think that it is a prudent one.

When my hon. Friend meets the principals and vice-chancellors, will he pay a particular tribute to the work of the former polytechnics, such as Middlesex university in my constituency? Will he also draw attention to the fact that, three years ago, those people who are complaining about a shortage of places said that the introduction of student loans would result in a reduction in the numbers of people going to university?

I shall, as ever, do both those things.

When my hon. Friend visits Southampton, he will be able to recall some of the whingeing words of Opposition Members when he sees the college of higher education, La Sainte Unione and the university of Southampton moving ahead with increased numbers of students, and expanding on other sites.

I cannot wait to receive an invitation from my hon. Friend, and I will do my best to respond to it positively as soon as possible.

When the Minister meets the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, will he discuss the dramatic increase in student numbers but the absence of corresponding increases in the numbers of lecturers, and lecturers' concern that there could be a slump in standards?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is certainly the case that numbers of students have expanded faster than the number of lecturers. It varies from place to place and situation to situation and, in some respect, it can be interpreted as productivity.

Will my hon. Friend telephone the Secretary of State this afternoon and wish him a speedy return to good health, and remind him that it is a source of great pride among Conservative Members that this country spends a higher proportion of its gross domestic product on higher education than either Germany or Japan, righting a long-term situation that has needed correction for some time?

I am sure that the wise remarks of my hon. Friend will help speed up the return to good health of the Secretary of State.

Will the Minister make an early response to the letter that he has received from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals asking for an extension to the consultation process about the funding of student unions to 1 November following the statement made on 1 July?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I can assure him that the letter we received this morning will be carefully considered, and we will respond to it as soon as possible.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to test teachers.

Under the appraisals regulations 1991, all teachers in maintained schools must be subject to an appraisal of their performance by 1995.

Does the Minister agree that teachers should be given a simple test to tell us the difference between the Labour party conference, the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Teachers conference? They are all a lot of hooligans who jump up and down and sulk when they are asked to do any work. Is the Minister aware that a certain hon. Member who has driven us mad over the years has been learning to drive this morning? Would not it be a good idea if that whole lot over there, and some of the teachers had L plates round their necks?

I welcome my hon. Friend's sound endorsement of the principle of teacher appraisal. It must be right that teachers undergo a form of appraisal in a properly structured and agreed form, but I am not sure whether that includes the questions that my hon. Friend suggested. Appraisals should be carried out to assure the highest quality of teaching, by identifying the full potential of teachers and meeting their training, retraining and support needs. That is the objective.

In response to that predictably silly outburst from the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), does the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman would have great difficulty in passing the present standard assessment tasks, and does he also agree that the vast majority of today's teachers are far better skilled than they were in the days when the hon. Gentleman went to school?

It is certainly the case that properly structured and developed appraisal of teachers must be a major contribution to the quality of our education. It is a matter of some regret that a union that is not totally unconnected with the hon. Gentleman is persisting in opposing the principle of teacher appraisal. I know not why it is doing so—it is for the union to explain—but the rest of us are entitled to be a little suspicious.

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about teacher appraisal. To enable teachers to pass his appraisal system, will he place further emphasis during teacher training on more practical classroom skills and more subject-based knowledge?

My hon. Friend has unerringly put his finger on one of the main thrusts of the Secretary of State's proposals. Of course it must be right that all training of teachers must lay the maximum emphasis on practical classroom skills, so that we do not rely entirely on paper qualifications, important though they may be, but identify the ability of teachers to educate in the classroom. That would emanate from my hon. Friend's sensible suggestions.

Following the recent revelations about masonic lodges linked to schools in Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire, does the Minister think that teachers and governors should be tested on their membership of secret societies?

Given that we are sitting in a Chamber which probably contains more secret and semi-secret societies than any other, I should be careful before embarking on throwing stones from this glass house.

In connection with teacher training and assessment, does my hon. Friend agree that schools should be given more time and a greater role in planning and assessing such courses? Does he agree that, in that connection, there should be less stress on educational and sociological theory and more stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) said, on subject knowledge, classroom skills and, in particular, classroom discipline?

Indeed. My hon. Friend shows yet again his enormous experience in this area, to which I defer. It must be right that the balance between theoretical and academic training, which must always have its place, and practical hands-on experience in the classroom is constantly reassessed. I am sure that my hon. Friend will fully support the recommendations and proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made recently, which we are now developing very much in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend.

As the Minister has acknowledged that the quality of teachers is important, why are the Government proposing to dilute the professionalism of teachers by the introduction of a semi-trained mums' army? Although we all want mature entrants into teaching, surely it is important that those who are entrusted with our children's education are highly educated and well trained. Why are Ministers gambling with our children's future by more crackpot experiments?

I approach this in sorrow rather than anger. It is sad that the hon. Lady should assume that the possession of a paper qualification automatically gives someone skills in classroom teaching and, worse, that she should suggest that people who do not possess academic qualifications, such as graduate skills, are in some way less than good in the classroom.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations he has received about his review of the national curriculum and testing.

Sir Ron Dearing, who is conducting the review, has held a series of regional conferences for head teachers and has consulted widely among teachers' organisations and other interested bodies. The Government expect his first report later this month, which will take into account all views expressed.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many responsible and moderate members of the teaching profession, while welcoming the principle of the national curriculum and testing, have expressed legitimate concern about the bureaucracy associated with their implementation? Will he assure the House that not only Sir Ron Dearing but Ministers will listen to constructive criticism and comments from the profession, with a view to improving that state of affairs?

I hope that hon. Members of all parties will endorse the wise words of my hon. Friend. Sir Ron Dearing is setting out to tackle the major criticisms that have been expressed by teachers and their unions. I am confident that he will produce a report around which the majority of our teachers can unite to restore order and proper teaching in our schools.

The Minister's noble Friend Baroness Blatch wrote to me the other day in reply to a letter from an able and respected headmaster in my constituency who had submitted a detailed assessment of the Government's approach to testing. The noble Lady said that "some" of my constituent's comments were unfounded. Would the Minister ask his noble Friend to publish her comments about those criticisms that she accepted?

The House will recognise that I have a small problem in trying to answer a question that refers to a letter which I have not seen. The Government will publish their response to the Dearing review as soon as possible after that review, and I would expect that that response will cover the type of issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the overwhelming majority of the nation's parents believe that the national curriculum and testing are essential for good education? Does he further accept that the majority of Conservative Members welcome the setting up of the Dearing review, look forward to its findings, and hope that those findings will be accepted by the teaching profession and implemented without any further problems?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I echo them. Testing and the national curriculum have raised standards in schools—[Laughter.] I hear laughter from Opposition Members. That is strange and sad. Testing and the national curriculum have raised standards, and the majority of teachers share the Government's wish that standards continue to be improved.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will make a statement on arrangements for EC students pursuing third level courses in the United Kingdom.

United Kingdolm higher education institutions have a strong tradition of internationalism and openness. Their popularity with students from other countries is a welcome indicator of the quality of the education they offer. EC action programmes have provided an added impetus. We fully meet our EC obligations to provide equal rights of access to higher education. Eligible students from other member states studying here may receive an award to cover the cost of their course fees to a specified maximum. Reciprocal rights apply to United Kingdom students studying elsewhere in the EC.

Have the number of students involved, and the expense, increased substantially in the past few years? I understand that the cost of the awards that the Minister mentioned was over £41 million last year, and the cost to the education system may have been somewhat higher. Does the Minister agree that the burden does not fall equally throughout the country but on certain regions? Will steps be taken to compensate those regions for the burden that they have to bear, and will he make other provisions for students from those regions who consequently find it more difficult to get a place?

There is undoubtedly a cost in grants of the order the hon. Gentleman suggests, although it is a gross cost. Against that must be set the large income received from overseas countries as a result of overseas students coming here. That amount has been estimated at £1·5 billion.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will review the distinction between local education authority budgets and further education funding; and if he will make a statement.

The Government will keep under review the spending needs of local education authorities and of the Further Education Funding Council in the light of their respective statutory responsibilities.

Does the Minister accept that, since 1979, funding per student has been reduced by 22 per cent., according to Library figures? In those circumstances, does he accept that community colleges that are caught between the two stools of further education funding and local authorities' restricted budgets face a budgetary crisis?

I should prefer to study the hon. Gentleman's figures at leisure—and I will do so. I am surprised that he did not acknowledge the huge expansion that we are carrying out in further education, to increase the number of students participating by 25 per cent. over the next three years, and to provide in the coming year £750 per full-time student place in further education.

Given the huge planned increase in the numbers in further education during the next few years, is my hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that the principals of further education colleges have given to their greater freedom, from April of this year, to manage their own affairs? Will he ensure that the Educational Assets Board gives further education insitutions enough control over their assets, especially when there are disputes between further education colleges and district councils—there was such a case in Kidderminster in my constituency—to ensure that they can fulfil their responsibilities?

My hon. Friend is right: there has been a positive response in general to the changes that we have made in the structure of the further education sector and to the indpendence that we have given to the various corporations. My hon. Friend will not expect me to comment on cases involving the Educational Assets Board, which is responsible for dividing assets, but I will draw his remarks to its attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he has any plans to alter arrangements for the award of discretionary student grants.

My right hon. Friend keeps the administration of student awards under periodic review. Any plans for changes in this field would be announced at the appropriate time.

Will the Minister agree to ring-fence funding for discretionary student awards? I and other hon. Members know of many students who cannot study medicine, law, music or other courses that they want to follow. It is crazy for society to deny them the opportunity to acquire those extra skills. I warn the Minister "Don't dare blame local education authorities, after the Government have savaged their budgets in recent year."

I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says for a moment—but, then, I usually cannot. The fact is that we continue to fund local education authorities for their responsibilities to schools and to all other aspects of education. We will continue so to do.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some Labour authorities, such as Kirklees, are refusing to give discretionary grants, so young students who have taken law degrees cannot then go on to law school or to the Council for Legal Education? They have degrees, but they cannot practise. What action can he take to help resolve that?

The nature of discretionary grants is such that LEAs must use their discretion when choosing whether to award them. We continue to fund them—[Interruption.]—whatever the Opposition may bray. If they want the figures, I can give them to them. If a local authority decides that it is not going to give any awards at all, that would be tantamount to a withdrawal of discretion, and would indeed be a serious matter. If my hon. Friend has evidence to that effect, I shall be pleased to consider it.

Is not it staggering that the Minister claims that he has the figures, yet he accuses my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) of anecdotes, rumour and innuendo, while his colleagues tell him that discretionary awards have, in effect, been abolished by local authorities? We are talking not simply about Labour authorities but about authorities up and down the country, and the Minister should know that that is the case. He should not come to the House and claim ignorance.

The hon. Gentleman can start by being a bit less arrogant about the Gulbenkian report unless or until he has seen it. What on earth is the point of commissioning the report or paying part of its costs if we are not prepared to consider what it says and take a view in the light of its findings? The hon. Gentleman said that authorities are cutting back. I happen to know—this reflects the change of political control, although the decision was taken before—that my local authority has expanded its provision in discretionary awards. That is an anecdote.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what research has been undertaken by his Department into the relationship between examinations and scholarly attainment.

None, but I share the widespread view that performance in examinations provides both a measure of current achievement and an indicator of future potential.

Does my hon. Friend find it surprising that the loudest complaints about exams often come from those people who do not have to take them but who profess their interest in educational standards? Does he accept that examinations are not only a measurement, as he just indicated, but provide a useful spur to performance at all ages and are an essential component of any good education system?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution. It is a little strange that all the evidence that we have shows that, far from complaining, school children have enjoyed taking the standard assessment tasks and that school attendance has risen on the days when tests are set. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the spur that tests and examinations provide. They give children a sense of purpose and achievement, which undoubtedly helps to raise standards in our schools.

The Minister has access to voluminous research that establishes that A-levels are a terrible predictor of subsequent degree performance. Why are they used to ration entry to higher education?

A study by Smithers and Robinson in 1989 showed a correlation between success in A-levels and degree performance. I am pleased that it also showed that mature students who lack A-level qualifications can perform as well as A-level entrants.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the conduct and marking of SATs should now be passed to examination boards, which perform professionally in that area? That would take the SATs away from being a burden on teachers to mark and take the setting of those important tests away from the bureaucracy which has been dealing with them so far.

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will know that Sir Ron Dearing is addressing that issue within his overall review. It would be wrong for me to anticipate that. I look forward, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, to seeing Sir Ron's comments on that aspect.

Can the Minister tell the House who in the Government will be responsible for this year's response to the GCSE examination results? Does the Minister recall last year's fiasco when the junior Minister praised the GCSE results and, a few days later, the Secretary of State rubbished them and the efforts of those who had taken the exams? Will the Minister assure the House that Ministers will not undermine the achievement of those who have taken GCSEs this year and that credit will be given where it is due—to the teachers and children who have worked so hard? Will he guarantee that Ministers will not rubbish those results this year?

I am advised by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools that the hon. Lady has entirely misunderstood what he said. Of course we welcome the improvement in GCSE results which has been seen recently. We look forward very much to those upward trends continuing and we will, of course, expect teachers to have carried out their responsibilities in that respect. I look forward to the hon. Lady joining the Government in seeing ever-higher standards achieved in those examinations as well.

If such research is carried out, will my hon. Friend look into a complaint that I have received from certain dons in Cambridge—that the award of first-class degrees is made far too easily these days? They tell me that many of the people at other universities who receive firsts are the sort of people who would not have obtained their matriculation in the old days.

Despite the fairly wide-ranging responsibilities that I carry, I must tell my hon. Friend that I do not carry that responsibility. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education has heard my hon. Friend's interesting comments and I have a strange feeling that he will reflect on them in the immediate future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the cost of external examiners for the current year's English and technical studies tests.

External marking is not a requirement for the 1993 tests in English, technology or other subjects. My right hon. Friend has asked Sir Ron Dearing to consider the merits of this option for the tests for 11 and 14-year-olds in 1994 and subsequently.

My question was what has been the cost of the external examiners for this year's tests. Is the Minister aware that I have received letters from head teachers in Tower Hamlets saying that they did not have the equipment in place to cover the areas required for testing in technological studies and that they received the details so late that their money had already been committed for the financial year? Instead of wasting money on publicity campaigns and external examiners to force English tests down the throats of unwilling teachers, would not it have been better to spend that money providing the tools for teaching our children? Will the Minister and the Secretary of State now admit that they were wrong about the tests and stop attacking the teachers? Education Ministers come and go, but it is the teachers who are the mainstay of our education system.

The hon. Lady has justified her reputation as being part of the jurassic tendency in educational terms. In taking but one element of the hon. Lady's comments, the adult literacy and basic skills unit recently reported that one third of students entering further education colleges did not have an adequate command of English to take advantage of their courses. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in regretting and deploring that fact and in looking forward to supporting the tests which will enable us to improve the standards of pupils of all ages.

Does my hon. Friend agree that external examination has shown itself to be an excellent way of ensuring that British universities maintain objective testing and standards throughout Europe? Does not he think it quite extraordinary that the Labour party consistently opposes everything that will improve testing, objectivity and a raising of standards in secondary schools?

I can only say to my hon. Friend, who is of course absolutely right, that I am not surprised. Time and again, when faced with a choice, the Labour party sides not with the consumer—in this case, the parents or pupils—but always with the producers. In this particular case, the Labour party is on a losing wicket and it will come to see that that is not helping to improve standards in our schools.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the standard spending assessment for education for each of the Merseyside metropolitan authorities for each of the last two years.

The figures for 1992–93 were as follows: Knowsley, £79 million; Liverpool, £215 million; St. Helens, £73 million; Sefton, £110 million; and Wirral, £136 million. For 1993–94 the figures will be: Knowsley, £71 million; Liverpool, £199 million; St. Helens, £62 million; Sefton, £96 million; and Wirral, £122 million.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he acknowledge that the figures he has just given show that school children in St. Helens get a very raw deal from the Government's SSAs? Will he explain to the parents of St. Helens—preferably in plain and simple English—why Liverpool and Knowsley are allocated £500,000 more to run a 1,000 pupil secondary school than the neighbouring borough of St. Helens?

Yes. Education SSAs are based mainly on pupil numbers. Recently, pupil numbers in St. Helens have been falling. That is one of the reasons. The other is that St. Helens comes out rather badly from the additional educational needs—AEN—index, which is part of the educational SSA mechanism. The good news for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents is that we are conducting a wide-ranging review of the methodology and mechanisms of SSAs and the AEN index. We will seek to update them and make them more relevant, fairer and more reflective of needs than in the past. I cannot predict what the outcome will be for St. Helens, or any other authority, but the hon. Gentleman and his constituents can be sure that, at the end of that process, all will be seen to be fair and even-handed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans he has to give trainee teachers more time in the classroom learning practical skills.

The tougher standards that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last year for the training of secondary teachers will ensure that postgraduate students spend two thirds of their time in schools. Our recent proposals for reform of primary teacher training also involve a significant increase in the time to be spent in schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that good teacher training should be a balance between education theory and practical skills? Does he further agree that, in the past, too much attention has been paid to education theory and that, in the future, more attention should be paid to practical skills, which are best learnt in the classroom?

My hon. Friend has put succinctly the philosophy underlying the proposals that my right hon. Friend made recently. Although they are out to consultation at the moment, I believe that, on mature reflection, most people will agree with my hon. Friend that the balance between academic training and classroom experience has probably not been correct in the past. That is something which we will seek to correct. I hope that all hon. Members and people outside the House who are interested will take the opportunity to reply during the consultations that we have recently initiated on this important subject.

In accepting that there must be a correct balance between the theory of learning processes and the actual practice of teaching, does the Minister agree that his Department's idea for a one-year course for adults who will teach children at the most critical stage of the learning process is totally inadequate? If the majority view of the consultation that he is undertaking is that one year is not enough, will he accept that professional opinion?

Of course we will look carefully, as ever, at the responses to the consultation paper. The reality is that, at the moment, many graduates enter teaching, following a one-year degree postgraduate certificate of education course, with a degree that may have no relevance to the primary curriculum. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman has leapt to that conclusion without properly considering the strength of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend in the consultation paper. When the hysteria shown by Opposition Members has settled down, it will be shown, on reflection and consideration, that our proposals are sensible and practical and in the interests of teaching and education.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education whether he will give consideration to increasing the sparsity factor in future calculations of standard spending assessments.

The education elements of SSAs are currently under review. The review will extend to the sparsity allowance, but, at this stage, it is too soon to say what the outcome will be.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of giving sufficient weight to the sparsity factor, adequately to reflect the fact that the economies of scale available in urban areas are simply not available to sparsely populated rural areas?

We have long recognised the sparsity allowance's relevance. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in ensuring that his county's interests have been fully represented in our consideration of that factor. As I said earlier, we are looking comprehensively at SSAs and the additional educational needs factors, including the sparsity allowance, to satisfy ourselves, education authorities, parents and pupils throughout the country that we fairly reflect the needs and balances of schools and authorities in the mechanisms for paying moneys and providing resources to them. Everybody in this Chamber will be happy with the result of our consideration, which we hope will be finalised and available in the autumn.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members are delighted to welcome him back from Tokyo and congratulate him on his success? Is not that in stark contrast to the lot opposite, who are horrified that their leader has just come back from Bournemouth? Did my right hon. Friend's father, at the height of his career as a trapeze artist, do as many somersaults as the Leader of the Opposition, the wriggler from Monklands, East?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome home. We did have a successful meeting in Tokyo and, from what I hear, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) had a rather less successful meeting in Bournemouth.

Following the vote in the House last night in which the Prime Minister and his colleagues voted to impose value added tax on the heating bills of millions of pensioners and families, does not he think that he should now apologise to the British people for betraying the election pledges that he made during the last election?

I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that matter today. This week's edition of "Labour Party News" contains an article with the heading

"Sending your comments to Chris Smith MP".

"In what ways can economic policy be developed to encourage environmental protection?

You might consider: Taxation Policy (eg energy tax 2026;)".

The Prime Minister clearly does not want to hear a reference to his VAT commitment. Let me remind him what he said in the "Conservative Campaign Guide"—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear it. The last thing that they want to hear about is the "Conservative Campaign Guide". It attacked the Labour party for what it called irresponsible scares about VAT and said:

"The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government has no intention of raising VAT."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly does not know his own policy and I offer him my copy of "Labour Party News". My comment was in response to Labour's charges that we intended to raise the standard rate to 22 per cent., which we were not intending.

You lied to them.

Order. I clearly heard the hon. Gentleman's unparliamentary language. Will he now withdraw it?

I understand that the expression is "economical with the truth", Madam Speaker.

That was a typically cheap withdrawal. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition is not being remotely open about his position. Quite apart from this week's admission that the Labour party was considering VAT on fuel—and still is—in its policy review document, "Looking to the Future", the Labour party stated:

"Zero-rating should remain on fares, books, food and children's clothing."

"We would … press forward … by ending the anomalous zero rate of VAT on fuel."

If the Prime Minister wants to wriggle out of the "Conservative Campaign Guide" commitment, let me remind him of what he said to the House on 28 January 1992. He said:

"There will he no VAT increase."—[Official Report, 28 January 1992; Vol. 202, c. 808]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is embarrassed because he walked into an open hole. That quote of mine is clearly related to the 17 per cent. rate of VAT, which we have not changed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is well aware of that. He may wriggle and wriggle, but this week's edition of "Labour Party News' shows clearly what the Labour party policy was and is.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that racial tolerance and compassion underlie the British character and that that is reflected in the natural desire of many childless couples to want to offer a good and loving home to children, regardless of race, colour or creed? Is not it time to end the shameful political correctness of some officials who seek to discourage that?

The Government's adoption policy will be guided by common sense and the interests of the child. There will be no house room for political correctness.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong feeling in Wales about the need to give the Welsh language official status alongside the English language in Wales—a policy which is supported across party political boundaries? Is he aware that a monolingual French label on a wine bottle or similar product in Wales is official in Wales? A label in Greek only is valid in Wales, but a label in the Welsh language is not valid because the British Government do not recognise the Welsh language as an official language. Will the right hon. Gentleman try to change that policy at the Report stage of the Welsh Language Bill this week?

The Government's Welsh Language Bill represents an important addition to support and encouragement for the Welsh language in Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman has canvassed and fought hard for the Bill and I know that he appreciated the fact that it was produced. We believe that Welsh already enjoys official status in Wales. A general declaration in the Bill would have no practical effect and would probably only increase legal uncertainty.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason that there is one member, one vote in the trade union movement was that the Government gave financial encouragement for postal ballots and actively helped democracy in the trade unions? Given that the campaign of the Leader of the Opposition to introduce one member, one vote in the Labour party will clearly either be fudged or abandoned, what measures will the Government—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat for a moment. The Prime Minister is not responsible for Opposition policies. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his question.

I am grateful for your correction. I am asking what action the Government will take, similar to that taken to encourage democracy in the trade unions, to encourage democracy in the Labour party.

Democracy in the Labour party would be a welcome addition to our public life. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) appears to be prepared to fight the battle for one man, one vote. He also appears to be retreating from it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister break his reputation for stubbornness and listen to the Social Security Advisory Committee when it says that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel will have a disproportionate effect on the incomes of the poor?

As the hon. Lady will know—we have stated it often enough in the House—we have made it clear that extra help will be provided in advance for people who are vulnerable, to meet the costs of VAT on fuel. That help will be in addition to the automatic increase in pensions and other benefits to reflect the impact of any increase in the retail prices index. I have made that clear repeatedly and so has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. Perhaps the hon. Lady would either care to listen to that statement now or read the innumerable occasions on which it has been made clear.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating British manufacturing industry on the figures published today on manufacturing output? Does he agree that that is a sign that Britain is moving into recovery and that, under his strong leadership, not only will Britain's economy improve but our party will emerge victorious at the end of this Parliament?

They were extremely good figures this morning. The increase in manufacturing output reported this morning is the largest monthly increase for four years. Clearly, that is good news and it bodes well for British manufacturing. But it is only one of a large number of signs that the economy is recovering—retail sales are up, car registrations are up, confidence is up and unemployment is down.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 July.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Has the Prime Minister seen today's leader article in The Times which refers to the instability in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the unease among Unionists? Does he accept that that instability has been increased by the Labour party's so-called discussion document, Dick Spring's revelations and the talks between emissaries of the British Government and the Provisional IRA? Will we now move from parrot calls for round table talks to restoring accountable democracy in Northern Ireland at all levels by direct action, rather than diplomatic dithering?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I share the views that he expressed about the Labour party's proposals for Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Leader of the Opposition about this matter some time ago, but, so far as I am aware, he has not yet received a reply.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will visit Bromsgrove.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Rover cars, parts of which are made in the Bromsgrove constituency, which announced yesterday that it had increased sales world wide? Does he agree that its achievement bodes well and is a good advertisement for British quality, British workers and an expanding British economy?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rover, which has increased its sales in Europe significantly. To have done that in the difficult trading conditions of Europe speaks volumes for its pricing and the quality of its products. Total car production has risen by about 11 per cent. and production of computers and related equipment is up by 8 per cent. There is no doubt that British industry is becoming more competitive and that British manufacturing industry in particular is beginning to penetrate new markets in quite a substantial way.

What would the Prime Minister say to the residents of Bromsgrove and nearby Birmingham who are sceptical about his claim that the imposition of VAT on fuel is an energy tax when that tax is also to be imposed on standing charges and there is no proposal to reinvest the revenue gained in energy conservation measures?

I would say what I said moments ago to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) about the reimbursement that would be available.