To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools have now been given grant-maintained status.

I have approved 34 of the 46 proposals for grant-maintained status which have so far reached me for a decision. More schools have now been approved for grant-maintained status than the number of secondary schools in over half the English local education authorities.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely helpful reply. Does he agree that even more schools would apply for grant-maintained status if they could appreciate the benefits that would flow from such status—they would fill staff vacancies much more quickly, they could use their funds to purchase additional books and classroom equipment and, above all, it would lift the dead hand of the local educational authority from the life of the school so that the school could decide what was best for its pupils?

I agree with all my hon. Friend's points. By way of illustration, he will have noticed that one grant-maintained school has increased its spending on books and equipment by 58 per cent. in its first year because of the flexibility that such status has given it. In addition, grant-maintained status is good for teacher morale because, with the governors, teachers are in full charge of their schools. Such status is popular with parents, as can be seen from the considerably increased number of parents who want to send their children to grant-maintained schools.

Why has the Secretary of State still not acted on the court judgment which, five weeks ago, declared that his action in relation to Beechen Cliff was illegal? When will he stop flouting the law and accept his responsibilities to all children in the Bath area?

I am urgently reconsidering the proposals in the light of the High Court judgment. I cannot make any comment on their substance today as I am still considering them. However, the court judgment relates to only one set of proposals; the principle of the grant-maintained option being available to schools is not in question.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the additional time which teachers in primary schools will spend on administration as a result of the introduction of the national curriculum and assessment at seven and 11 years.

We are awaiting the School Examinations and Assessment Council's advice about the administrative implications of the assessment arrangements for seven-year-olds in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science, in the light of the pilot assessments being conducted in 2 per cent. of primary schools this summer.

During the past term I have taken every opportunity to visit as many primary schools as I can in my constituency to hear the views of teachers at first hand. Although I have been encouraged by the enthusiastic response to the national curriculum and assessments, does my hon. Friend agree that there must be some foundation to the concern felt by many teachers about the increasing amount of administrative work imposed on them by local authorities and by the Government? That is especially the case in primary schools, where teachers do not have free periods for planning. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is listening carefully to those anxieties and that it will not be a question of saying, "I hear what you say", and then doing nothing?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Like her, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited a number of primary schools and made similar observations. We appreciate the extremely hard work that primary school teachers have put into introducing the national curriculum, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Our major concern is that some primary school teachers have taken their responsibilities so seriously that they are trying to introduce assessments without the proper guidance that will be brought forward in the autumn. I hope that some of them will wait for that advice rather than trying to construct their own assessments in an effort to do their best.

The Minister will no doubt recall that when the Education Reform Bill was in Standing Committee there was a great deal of discussion about the amount of non-teaching time needed fully to implement the national curriculum. At the time a figure of 10 per cent. was talked about. Given that since then we have had the Elton report on discipline, which also imposes work and duties on teachers, will she confirm that primary school teachers will have at least 10 per cent. non-teaching time to carry out all the essential functions associated with the national curriculum and the Elton report on discipline?

Primary school teachers are delivering and introducing the national curriculum and, rightly, taking time for in-service training to ensure that they deliver the national curriculum correctly. I am sure that they will also find time to do other work within the 1,265 hours that they have under their contracts.

Will my hon. Friend note the anxieties of Conservative Members who are sympathetic to the extra work and burdens placed on all teachers? Is she aware of our anxiety at the decision by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers to call for a one-day strike? Will she explain that the best way for teachers to put their case over to the Government is not by strike action but by building on the sympathy and understanding of the general public which they are putting at risk?

My hon. Friend is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I were deeply disappointed by the decision of the NAS/UWT to take action. That decision was taken by a small percentage—about a third—of the members of the union. We believe that the decision will deprive children of necessary education deeply disappoint their parents. It will not fulfil the expectations of the general public, which over the past three years have been improving greatly. A respect for teachers and their work has been building up which the action will destroy at a stroke.

When answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the Minister failed to mention that section of Her Majesty's inspectors' report which says that, by some route or other, 10 per cent. of non-contract time must be allowed for each teacher for administration. Is she aware that the report says that otherwise it will be impossible for primary schools, particularly small ones, to implement the national curriculum, testing and reporting of testing?

I am well aware of the amount of time that primary school teachers spend with their children. They have always spent most of the school day with their children. But that does not comprise the full 1,265 hours to which they are committed to work under their contracts. They have non-contract time outside teaching time for in-service training and other duties, and teachers undertake those duties willingly.

On the national curriculum, does my hon. Friend believe that more and more people from all backgrounds will in later life buy personal pensions, buy their own homes and be share owners? Is she satisfied that schools are equipping people for what, after all, will be a fairly complicated financial life?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. We hope that one of the most important common themes running through the teaching of the national curriculum will be economic awareness of matters that will be a feature of everyone's life in the future.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he is taking to ensure that schools are in good repair, prior to the enactment of local management of schools.

It is the responsibility of local education authorities to carry out necessary repairs to county and voluntary controlled schools. Governors of voluntary-aided schools receive grant aid from the Department for necessary external repairs.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that next financial year the capital allocation from his Department for Gateshead city technology college is three times that for all 145 schools in Sunderland put together? How can that be justified when many of the schools in my constituency and elsewhere are falling to pieces?

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that officials from my Department recently had a meeting with officers of Sunderland local education authority. We are anxious to look as helpfully as we can at the capital needs of Gateshead. The capital guidelines issued to authorities are based on objective criteria and standards that are well understood by the authorities. If the bid from Sunderland failed to match our national priorities it is the responsibility of the authority. We are anxious, however, to look with the authority at its needs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently visited St. George's school in my constituency, which is operating the full local management of schools system and which is extremely happy with it? Is my hon. Friend aware that that school now gets its repairs done speedily by outside contractors which cuts down the costs to the school and that, next year, it will be able to carry over £70,000 of its budget? Will the Minister tell my right hon. Friend how pleased that school and other schools are with the 100 per cent. carry-over rules now permitted by the Department?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The flexibility that LMS will allow head teachers and the chairmen of governors to enable them to get work done is enormously welcome. Those people have welcomed LMS because it offers them an enhanced opportunity for responsibility and to get things done at a practical level. Many head teachers have told me how difficult it has been to have every decision that they needed to take about repairs and maintenance of their schools second-guessed by their authorities. They are pleased to have the opportunity for flexible, rapid response.

Is not it clear that LMS will cause problems in relation not just to school buildings and repairs, but teacher jobs? What action will the Department take to protect the job of Mrs. Barbara Symes—a constituent of the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—a mathematics teacher who is threatened with redundancy from Redlands first school? What educational justification can there be for making redundant an experienced and senior maths teacher? Is not that educational vandalism and a demonstration that all that we have said about LMS and the security of teachers' jobs is correct?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise the fair principle that every child of a given age should attract an equal unit of resource. As teaching costs are far the largest component of educational spending, it follows that the formula for a school's budget must reflect the average cost of employing a teacher. We have, of course, said that we are prepared to look sympathetically at the problems of schools facing difficulties in the transition from actual to average salaries. Three quarters of schools will gain from the flexibility that we have allowed for small schools. Larger schools that have the prospect of a reduction in their budgets of more than 1 per cent. during the four-year transitional period will be considered sympathetically and may have the opportunity of a longer transitional period.

Is the Minister aware that a major problem in education is not the method of funding, but the amount of money available after the method has been determined? Is he aware that many schools are in a state of disrepair and that it is estimated that £3 billion is needed to bring schools up to standard? Will he assure the House that, by September 1991, regulations on the standard of school buildings which were suggested in 1981 will be capable of being enforced?

Between 1976 and 1979, when the hon. Gentleman and his party supported the Labour Government, there was a 50 per cent. cut in capital spending on school buildings. Since then, under this Government, there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the amount spent per pupil on school buildings. Nationally, there has been a 42 per cent. increase in the amount spent per pupil in our schools. The amount of resources that we can make available for education depends on the progress of the economy. With the successful development of the economy under this Government, increased resources are going into education.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the circumstances in West Sussex, where terrible damage was inflicted on temporary hutted classrooms during the recent storms? Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to those difficulties to see whether financial assistance can be given to those schools?

We were concerned to do what we could as quickly as possible to help schools that suffered serious damage in the storms earlier this year. The House was shocked and distressed at the deaths and injuries to children. Fortunately, the standing instructions that local education authorities have in force enabled schools, with the good sense and resourcefulness of head teachers and other teachers, to minimise the risk to people. We immediately made it clear that money to help would be available under the emergency Bellwin rules. Since then, my Department has written to all authorities asking them to review their procedures that they undertook to ensure that minimum damage occurs as a consequence of the storms.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the guidelines for approval of grant-maintained status for schools.

In considering proposals for grant-maintained status, steps are taken to ensure that I have all the necessary information to enable me to decide the proposals on their merits.

The Secretary of State will be aware that of the 65 schools that voted to opt out, 60 per cent. had been involved in the reorganisation or closure programme. Does not that show that the reorganisation programme is being used to assist the opt-out policy? Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo), how many High Court cases will he lose before he scraps the disastrous opt-out policy?

I totally reject the idea that this is a disastrous policy, as do all parents who will benefit from it. Among the grant-maintained schools on which we have information, applications for next September seem to be up by 40 per cent. on this year. That shows what parents want, and that is what the hon. Gentleman wants to deprive them of. I hope that it will be noted that he does not believe in parental choice. I have already rejected applications from 11 schools that did not satisfy me about their viability. All were in the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described—subject to closure by their local education authorities at the time of the parental ballots or just afterwards.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that all school governors are aware of the guidelines on grant-maintained schools and the advantages that such schools afford local schools, local children and future education?

In the past week we have prepared a leaflet that is available to all schools and parents explaining what grant-maintained schools are about, the process of applying to become a grant-maintained school and so on. As my hon. Friend will know, a charitable body, Choice in Education, exists to show schools the benefits of grant-maintained status. What will make the case for grant-maintained schools above all will be the enthusiasm and morale of the teaching staff, the tremendous support of the governors and the fact that parents want to send their children to them.

Does the Secretary of State recall making clear and categorical promises that grant-maintained schools would be treated in the same way as local authority schools when it came to funding? In view of those promises, will he explain why the so-called charity, Choice in Education, which is no more than a Conservative front organisation run by a Conservative councillor, Andrew Turner, has been writing to schools considering opting out as follows:

"The possibility of better funding is by far the most important factor leading to a decision to opt out … the budgets set for Grant-Maintained schools indicate first year funding levels of between 15 per cent. and 26 per cent. higher than the historic level"?

Current funding is entirely on all fours with the maintained sector. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the fact that grant-maintained schools can have that proportion of funding for the services that are provided centrally, normally by local education authorities. That funding is made available on a strictly comparable basis for grant-maintained schools. That has meant that we have made provision for services which were previously provided centrally—on average about 15 per cent. of the direct costs of the schools. That puts the funding on all fours with the maintained sector. The great benefit to the grant-maintained school is that priorities are decided on the expenditure itself. That is being proved already to be of benefit to children.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that teachers are queuing to apply for every job that is available in grant-maintained schools which is a sign of the great success of those schools? Does he agree that those teachers are unlikely to strike on 4 April and damage children's education? Will he do all that he can to dissuade all teachers from striking on 4 April? That act would only damage the education of children and further damage the teaching profession.

My hon. Friend is right. I have visited a number of grant-maintained schools and met many teachers from them. I know that the morale, enthusiasm, dedication and commitment of those teachers is high. I am sure that the great majority of teachers throughout the country share that dedication and commitment. That is why I deplore the attitude of a small minority of teachers, reflected in the NAS-UWT decision to strike for a day. As my hon. Friend says, that is damaging to children and, in the eyes of the public, to the teaching profession as a whole. That is why I am grateful to the other teaching unions for taking a responsible attitude on these matters and saying that such action serves no useful purpose. It merely diminishes the teaching profession.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the dual support system for research in universities and polytechnics.

Research is sponsored by research councils in universities and polytechnics by grants from the councils. Under the dual support system the universities also receive block funding for research from the UFC.

Is not this a device to transfer £70 million to the research councils and further centralise research and diminish the authority of the universities? Instead of moving the deckchairs, and changing the administrative arrangements, should not we be increasing the amount of research that is undertaken?

It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not noticed the substantial increase in the science budget over the past 10 years, and the past two years especially. The proposals, which follow a recommendation of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils, are still being consulted upon, so I cannot confirm the figure that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is a widespread view that it is desirable to make the transfer to achieve greater clarity in the arrangements and the costs of funding research, and to enable research to be better managed by the research councils and within the higher education institutions.

Why do we need a dual system at all? If an organisation has a professor and awards degrees, why should it not call itself a university? Is not it about time that polytechnics were allowed to do that?

I think that my hon. Friend is confusing dual systems. The dual system of research, which is the subject of the question, is a principle to which Government adhere. We believe that it achieves a desirable balance between the ability of research councils to manage the deployment of research funds on a national basis and the ability of institutions and people who work in them to initiate proposals for research and to conduct research in a free and autonomous manner. We believe that that dual system still has many advantages but that it is desirable to clarify the boundaries between the two different funding systems. That is the subject of our proposal.

If the research funding at the disposal of universities and polytechnics falls, are not there bound to be greater instability and frictional losses in the research activity of particular institutions because there will not be the continuity of research council funding?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman raises a point of substance which will have to be taken into account in the consultations on these matters. Balances have to be struck, but we believe that there are advantages in clarifying the boundaries in this fashion, as the advisory board recommended. One of the advantages, incidentally, will be to ensure that research funding goes increasingly to those institutions—and to the individuals in them—capable of doing the best work.

Does the Minister share my enthusiasm for the votes in the House of Lords yesterday on the Education (Student Loans) Bill?

I am delighted to note my hon. Friend's enthusiasm. The Government are still considering their position in relation to those amendments and no doubt my hon. Friend will be informed in due course of any conclusions that the Government have reached.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what criteria he adopted for determining expenditure on secondary education within the standard spending assessment of each local education authority.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what basis the 1990–91 standard spending assessments for education were calculated.

The education component of the standard spending assessment is distributed among authorities principally on the basis of the number of pupils and students in each block of the assessment. The distribution also involves certain other factors that take account of the different circumstances of different authorities. In the case of secondary education, the relevant group comprises pupils aged 11 to 15 in each authority. Full details can be found in the revenue support grant distribution report.

Does the Minister agree that the SSA exercise is unrealistic in any case? Is she aware that the London borough of Newham has had to cut expenditure viciously to approach its SSA figure but has nevertheless had to spend £7 million in what the Secretary of State would call excessive expenditure? Is she aware that Norfolk education committee has also had to spend £7 million of what the right hon. Gentleman would call excessive expenditure? Is not it time that the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and the hon. Member for Newham, South got together and took the advice of the respective friends, local parents and teachers urging them to protest against the Secretary of State's uninformed, damaging and irresponsible proposals?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has much to complain about. As it happens, Newham benefits from the increased weightings for additional educational needs and from the area cost adjustment in the revised methodology for the educational element of SSAs. In other words, his authority is doing rather well out of the new system compared with the old.

Given the Minister's unsatisfactory reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State have completely ignored representations from Sheffield city council and, indeed, many Tory-controlled authorities about the methods used to work out the standard spending assessments, should not the Secretary of State now have the courage to stand up for the children of Britain and argue with his colleagues that they ought to scrap the poll tax?

Sheffield has been a significant overspender on education in the past and its expenditure per pupil has been considerably larger than most. None the less, its standard spending assessment will allow £150 million for spending on education, which should be perfectly adequate.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the present system of putting money into schools—through local government finance—is not working well, particularly in the case of capital expenditure? Does she accept that, in the longer term, we shall have to consider direct funding for education from the Exchequer, while retaining local control?

I think that my hon. Friend knows already that the Government have no plans for such a move. The money currently spent through the local education authorities, with the support of the Government and of the community charge payers, would have to come from somewhere. Subtracting that money would not leave community charge payers in a better position.

My hon. Friend will be aware that many secondary school buildings constructed in the 1960s have flat roofs, which are a pain in the neck because they leak constantly. Will she examine the criteria to see what can be done to provide special financial assistance to enable that design fault to be corrected?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I share the view that the flat roofs of buildings constructed in the 1960s have proved very unsatisfactory. In saying that, I refer not just to education buildings but to buildings throughout the public sector. When we consider next year's assessment for capital expenditure, that matter will be taken into account.

Why have Ministers set education spending levels so low that if authorities were to meet them thousands of teachers across the country would have to be sacked? Why are Ministers getting ready to poll tax cap authorities spending well under £2,800 per secondary pupil while they are ready to subsidise children at private schools, such as the one to which the Secretary of State sends his child, which charge more than £4,000 per pupil? Why do we have to put up with that double standard, whereby Ministers are ready to put at risk and undermine the education of other people's children in a way in which they would never put at risk the education of their own children?

The hon. Gentleman has totally failed to understand that the new standard spending assessments do not take into account exactly the same factors as the old grant-related expenditure assessments. That is perhaps not surprising as it is quite a difficult sum. It is quite wrong, and totally misleading, to say that the spending for 1989–90 can in any way be compared with the spending for next year. For example, the debt charges are not taken into account in the standard spending assessments, whereas they are taken into account in the grant-related expenditure.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to establish a new negotiating body for teachers' pay.

I held a series of constructive meetings with the teacher unions and employers towards the end of last year. I am considering carefully the points put to me and will make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so. The immediate priority is to complete the consultation process on the 1990–91 pay settlement.

Teachers are understandably anxious that there should be a new pay body, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of pay cannot be viewed in isolation from the career structure of the teaching profession, the effect of the local management initiative, and the overriding objective of raising the morale of teachers? Does he think that the threat of fresh industrial action will have precisely the opposite effect and will serve only to undermine the good will that has carefully been re-established in our schools?

I agree with my hon. Friend that these issues relate not just to pay as such but to career structures and to the need for greater local flexibility to enable local school management to operate. My hon. Friend will have noticed that in this year's pay settlement the interim advisory committee carried out the remit that I had given it and produced far-reaching recommendations to deal both with career structure and with local flexibility. As to industrial action, I can only repeat what I said earlier—I do not believe that such action does anything to enhance teachers' standing in the public mind. The vast majority of dedicated teachers want to get on with the job and deserve respect. I regret the fact that the action of the few undermines that hard and dedicated work.

Five years after the Government destroyed the teachers unions' democratic negotiating rights and were condemned for doing so by international law and by the United Nations Organisation, through the International Labour Organisation, are we to have a negotiating body dictated to us which cannot negotiate, or one with teacher representatives democratically elected to negotiate?

As I have explained on a number of occasions, trying to find the right machinery for determining teachers' pay in the future is what the discussions are all about. There are wide differences of view among the interested parties and the task is to find the best way ahead. Some teacher unions have rather welcomed the outcome of the work that the interim advisory committee has been doing in recent years and have greatly welcomed the fact that through its recommendations and our acceptance of them a much better career structure has been produced.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consideration he has given to findings of the Interim Advisory Committee on Teachers' Pay which were not made in its formal recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

My hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with teachers in his constituency about the report. I have considered carefully all the points that the interim advisory committee has made. It has produced an excellent report. I am completing the required consultation on the report and will make an announcement in due course when consideration of the responses has been completed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely hopeful answer on the IAC report, but what message does he have this afternoon for the 100 or so teachers in my constituency of Fylde on the subject of teacher morale? Which parts of the IAC report will he act on to help address those problems?

The IAC report is fundamentally about pay. I have already said that, subject to the consultation process that I am going through at the moment, I am minded to accept the IAC recommendations in full. The committee has said that its recommendations are far reaching, and I believe that to be right. They will produce a career structure which rewards greater responsibilities and which rewards more those who get to the top of their profession. The pay of heads and deputies will increase by about 10·4 per cent. on average and there will be flexibility to deal with local shortages and to reward classroom skills. That is all helpful and, in so far as low morale is about pay, the committee's report takes us a good way forward.

I do not want to undermine some of the IAC's recommendations, but will the Secretary of State accept that the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has been driven to take strike action, which I do not endorse, by a much larger majority of its members than the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues had as a percentage of the electorate at the last election, because they feel frustrated that they cannot negotiate their pay and conditions? Will the Secretary of State announce the end of the IAC and the beginning of negotiating rights for teachers so that they can negotiate a better deal?

I have already given my view on the decision to hold a one-day strike and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman takes the same view. Such a strike serves no useful purpose, particularly as I am in the process of consultation on the IAC report, about which I met the NAS/UWT a week or so ago, and on the long-term negotiating machinery, about which I have also seen representatives. It is pointless to have a strike while those discussions are going on. Strikes on such issues are not right in any case for a noble profession and I hope that even now the union will think again.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should condemn those who are trying to get teachers to go on strike over pay? At a time when strikes in industry are increasingly rare, is not it a crying shame that the teaching profession—of which I used to be a member and which is composed of educated people—should be unable to resolve such issues by sitting down round a table and discussing them?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. What is more, I believe that that is what the vast majority of teachers think.

To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to increase the level of achievement of 16 to 19-year-olds in full-time education.

The Government have achieved a substantial increase in full-time participation in post-compulsory education. For 16-year-olds, it has increased by 25 per cent.—from 40 to 50 per cent.—between 1979 and today, and for 16 and 17-year-olds taken together it has increased from 34 to 42 per cent. These figures do not include youth training scheme trainees who attend college full time. We also have improvements in hand for the curriculum and qualifications for this age group.

Why cannot all 16 to 19-year-olds have the same freedom of choice as those who come from wealthy families? Is not it true that a lot of young people who leave school at 16 have the choice of the YTS swindle or cardboard city? If the Government have enough money to provide for city technology colleges and for tax relief for public schools, why can we not have equal financial allowances for those working class kids who volunteer to stay on at school?

The hon. Gentleman's question is based on a factual misapprehension. It is perfectly possible for 16-year-olds to stay on at school or go to college full-time if they choose.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March 1990.

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. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she confirm that the last remaining obstacle to early British entry into the exchange rate mechanism is the present temporary high rate of inflation?

My hon. Friend is not quite right. In view of the statement made in Madrid, and repeated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend will know that it is absolutely vital that we have free movement of capital throughout the Community. That condition has not yet been satisfied and is one factor. We must get our own rate of inflation down and we must have proper competition throughout the Community.

Is it not evident from that reply that the Prime Minister has absolutely no serious intention of joining the exchange rate mechanism for as long as she survives?

No, not in the least—I stand by the statement that we made in Madrid. I was not able to join the EMS during my first decade—I hope to do so during my second.

Does the right hon. Lady not agree with the view expressed by the former Chancellor last night that Britain's non-membership of the EMS is an exposed flank? As a result is it not clear that last night she was savaged by a live scapegoat?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor would be the first to agree about the need to get inflation down. That is the top priority.

So will the Prime Minister tell us whether she believes that, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the current pace is "too leisurely"?

I reaffirm what I said in Madrid and what I have said in my two previous answers. We are committed to joining the exchange rate mechanism and we shall do so when the Madrid conditions are fulfilled. They are not fulfilled yet.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the end of last week she said that she had received a message from the electors of Mid-Staffordshire? In her characteristically forthright fashion, will she send a message back to them to the effect that, local difficulties apart, the Government have a lot of important business to transact in the next few months and that when that business has been dispatched they will certainly wish to dispatch the temporary representative?

Yes, I think that my hon. Friend has got it absolutely right. We hope and expect to win back that constituency in the general election, as we have won back seats from previous by-elections.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

What message of hope has the Prime Minister for the hard-pressed and beleaguered Scottish fishing industry? Will she allow that vital indigenous industry to go to the wall as so many others have?

The hon. Lady is well aware that part of the fishing grounds have been significantly overfished. There is a need to conserve the fish. Although in recent months the fishermen have not been able to land the same weight as previously, they have been getting much better prices. We are in close touch with the Commission and are carefully watching the effect of East German entry on the common fisheries policy. We will ensure that East Germany does not take the quota that we regard as ours.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the unequivocal assurance given by the Government in the White Paper, "Airports Policy", in 1985—that there would not be a second runway at Stansted—is as unequivocal now as it was then?

I have no reason to think that there has been any change whatsoever.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland that the disastrous mishandling of the poll tax issue in the Budget was a victory for him over her—or, in his words, that on this issue she fell into line with his better judgment?

No, that showed how generous are the resources available to Scotland. The £9,500 million enabled my right hon. and learned Friend easily to take £4 million to help the people who have been paying community charge for longer than those in England.

May I ask the Prime Minister to imagine that the community charge had been in operation for the past 100 years? If that were so, what does my right hon. Friend think that householders would be saying to one another if the Government were about to introduce a system of household domestic rates?

I think that my hon. Friend has made a clever point. My imagination does not go back 100 years, but the essential point that my hon. Friend makes is that the rates were the most unfair and unpopular tax of all, and they are being replaced by a fairer tax that will in time prove much better.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

Last night the former Chancellor and the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) both refused to support the Prime Minister in the Lobby in a Division on the poll tax—despite the fact that only hours previously the right hon. Member for Henley had been driven into a loyalty oath in favour of the Prime Minister. What does she think of those two right hon. Gentlemen now? Does she believe that the loyalty oath was hollow? Is this the first time that a Chancellor has expressed a reservation on the poll tax?

I must ask my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to have a quiet word with them and see what that will do.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that because of her special relationship with Mr. Gorbachev she is better placed than any other world leader to send a clear message to the Soviet Union that armed intervention in Lithuania is no more acceptable today than it was in Czechoslovakia and Hungary? Will she please do so?

My hon. Friend will be aware of my previous replies. The people of Lithuania have made clear their wish to determine their own future. Furthermore, we have never recognised the annexation of Lithuania by the Soviet Union as legal, although it was recognised in fact in the Helsinki accords. Undoubtedly this is a very difficult situation, both for President Gorbachev and for the people of Lithuania. I believe that it calls for great restraint on both sides. Force is not an appropriate way to settle the position. I hope that it will be settled by restraint on both sides and by their discussing it so that they come to a satisfactory conclusion. That view was also taken by the 12 Foreign Secretaries of the Community.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland at the weekend to the effect that he had been involved in politics prior to her becoming leader of her party and that he would continue to be so involved when she was no longer the leader of her party. Does not the Prime Minister think it more likely that the general election will sound the death knell of both simultaneously?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is a young and able man. I am sure that he will still be here at this Dispatch Box in a Conservative Government long after I am not.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

My right hon. Friend is aware that high-spending councils such as Lancashire have levied a 17·5 per cent. increase in their expenditure this year. Does she agree that they are playing their part in increasing inflation, that they must recognise that that is their role and that they must look carefully at their finances with a view to restraining increases next year?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Lancashire and a number of other Labour authorities are accepting some of the advice given in one of the Labour documents—to set the community charge as high as they can possibly get away with. That is what they have done. It adds to inflation and it puts a heavy burden on all their local electors who will have to pay far more community charge than they ought, had those councils adhered to the Government's standard spending recommendations.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March 1990.

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

In view of the answer that the Prime Minister gave a few moments ago, will she say in what way the Lithuanian people should show restraint, given that since 1939 their country has been annexed by and forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union and that the aggression in Lithuania now is coming entirely from the Soviet Union? Does she not believe that the Government of President Landsbergis should be recognised as the Government of that country?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the situation there is very difficult indeed, that it does not help to be provocative in any way, on either side, and that the only way is for both groups of people to sit down, try to work things through by dialogue and come to a satisfactory settlement. We had hoped last night when we saw people in Lithuania and people in the red army sitting down together that they were well on the way to doing that. It does require dialogue between politicians. We support such a dialogue, and so does the whole of the European Community.

Would my right hon. Friend care to contemplate the fact that in the 1980s shops and hotels had to put the customer first, with fewer people, factories had to produce more goods with a smaller work force and even the professions had to learn that the world did not revolve around them, but for local authorities the party has gone merrily on? Is there any earthly reason why that should be so?

My hon. Friend makes the point effectively. Output has gone up in factories and offices, with fewer people, and by that means we have achieved a higher standard of living. Unfortunately, the numbers employed by local authorities have continued to rise, and we have reason to ask whether they could achieve greater administration with fewer people, which would bring down the community charge.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 27 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with her supporter, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who in a recent radio interview called for the police to sweep the homeless off the streets and close the cardboard cities? Where does she think he might like them to be swept to?

There are about 21,000 hostel places available in the London area, many more than there used to be, of which about 3,000 are available at short notice. They are not always filled and it would be better if people spent the night in the beds in those hostels than on the streets of London.