asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek a supplementary estimate to enable her to meet claims for greater financial aid to the arts.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion. I can assure him that I shall not overlook any opportunity of increasing the resources available for the arts.

I am equally grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. When she is putting in further applications for financial assistance for the arts will she take into consideration the present peril of the actual buildings? Will she consider the position of the Theatres Trust, which at present exists without any Government aid, and the possibility of coming to its aid, thereby enabling it, in turn, to ensure that theatrical buildings continue to exist and carry out the essential task which they perform, both in our artistic and economic life?

I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. As he will know, provision is already being considered by the Arts Council for those poorer provincial theatres that are in some difficulty.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the situation regarding the land fund? Why are the Government blocking the very worthwhile National Heritage Fund Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) especially in view of the Prime Minister's declaration last September that this matter would be referred to the Think Tank for its proposals? What has happened to the Minister with responsibility for the Arts? Is he on strike?

If he waits for a little while the hon. Gentleman will hear that a full statement is about to be made on the whole question of the land fund and the national heritage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an urgent need for much more support for the arts in the regions and for a new museums' council to be set up so that some of our collections can be taken out of storage? Will she also take on board the need to preserve some of our theatre buildings which are under threat of redevelopment, such as the London Pavilion? All these matters require resources from her Department.

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the arts. Last year a substantial increase was made in the arts budget which was well above the normal rate of inflation. I do not think that my hon. Friend will be too dissatisfied with the programme that will shortly be announced for next year.

Does the Secretary of State accept the main conclusions of the Drew report, and in particular the granting of central funds to the seven designated provincial museums?

The hon. Gentleman will shortly hear our conclusions on the Drew report. May I say to him, loudly and clearly, that it is very important that national resources that are made available for the arts on a rising line should be complemented by contributions from local authorities. Local authorities are not always as forthcoming as they should be.

May I simply underline to my right hon. Friend that many of us are eager to hear the Government's reactions to the recommendations in the Drew report? When may we expect a statement on this matter?

I have already indicated that a statement will be made fairly shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased when he hears it.

We were glad to read in The Daily Telegraph this morning of the increased touring grant to the Prospect Theatre Company. Will the Secretary of State look into the question of what further financial aid—of either a capital or current nature—can be made to that excellent company in order that it may remain based at the Old Vic?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is a matter for the decision of the Arts Council. But I can assure him that the council was last year, and will I hope very shortly be, in a position to make decisions about new projects as well as about continuing existing projects. The Government have given pretty generous support to the arts in the past couple of years.

I shall have to call fewer supplementary questions on the rest of the questions if we are to make progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, further to her reply to the honourable and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), what is the estimated membership of the Professional Association of Teachers, whose application for membership of the Burnham committee she has rejected.

The latest membership figure available from the certification office is 10,896. I understand that the association now claims some 12,000 serving members.

Does it not remain a fact that, whether the membership is 10,000 or 12,000, this fast growing union, pledged as it is never to strike, is denied recognition by the Department whilst a teachers' union of 3,000 is granted recognition? In these difficult times, when one finds a union that is prepared to behave responsibly, as this union is, why on earth does not the Minister encourage it?

We must take into account the fact that there are nearly 300,000 members of the NUT and there are 127,056 members of the NAS and UWT, which will have six representatives. The criterion is whether the PAT represents a separate category of teachers. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered representations from the association—indeed, I met representatives on 17 January—but does not propose to add it to the teachers' panel.

At the present time of industrial disputes, including disputes in schools, will not the Minister welcome the existence of a recognised union in the teaching profession pledged not to strike? Will he inform all local authorities, of whatever colour, that as it is a recognised trade union members of it can be appointed as health and safety representatives in schools?

It is basically a question of the numbers of members of the association. The health and safety aspects are matters for individual local authorities in deciding whether to recognise the association.

Does not this case illustrate what a lot there is wrong with the Burnham structure? Even if the PAT were recognised and brought on to the Burnham committee, the single channel system under which all the claims of different unions are put forward by one union, the largest teachers' union, makes the system very ineffective. Is not that particularly noticeable when many teaching organisations regard the NUT's claim as irresponsible?

With regard to the representative character of Burnham, my right hon. Friend has recently reviewed its membership and will be making a determination under the Remuneration of Teachers Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment she has made of the extent to which universities and polytechnics have made arrangements to comply with her policy of reducing the proportion of overseas students to the level reached in 1975–76.

While full statistics for 1978–79 are not yet available, the indications are that many universities and polytechnics have more overseas students than they had in 1975–76.

Is it not clear from what is happening that universities cannot and will not operate a system of discrimination based on country of origin? Is the Secretary of State aware that many vice-chancellors consider the policy to be not only against the spirit of the way in which universities are conducted but even against their charters?

I merely say loudly and clearly that I am strongly in favour of there being overseas students at universities and polytechnics. Nevertheless, it is the case that in 1970–71 there were 32,000 overseas students in further and higher education in this country and that our latest figures, for 1976–77, show that there were 83,000, an increase of two and a half times in the course of six years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that we get it across to institutions of higher education that the alternative to a numerical quota is rationing by the purse through fee increases? That is much more objectionable and entails increases in fees for domestic students as well, disturbing the whole balance of their financing, more particularly in the difficult conditions they will face during the 1980s in any event.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The choice of paths is inescapable. Either there is a quota, which many students and academics find objectionable, or there is rationing by the purse, which I and many of my hon. Friends regard as objectionable. We are trying to find a better solution to this question, which is now under consideration. But it is important that the House should recognise that it is not an easy problem to deal with and that Britain is at present something of a magnet to those overseas students who wish to learn in the English language.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what criteria she will base her decision to select certain areas for means-tested educational maintenance allowances; and if she will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science upon what criteria she will decide which local education authorities shall, in the whole or part of their areas, run pilot schemes of universal means-tested educational maintenance allowances as from September this year.

Only those authorities which volunteer can be considered for the pilot programme, so the final selection must depend on the composition of the list of volunteers as well as the level of resources available.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while many of us welcome the whole idea of, and tendency towards, mandatory educational maintenance allowances, there is nonetheless great worry about areas competing for them and possibly even on occasions even refusing them? Will he also accept that, although I appreciate the difficulties, means testing seems to me a sad business, and will cause all kinds of anomalies? We hope that one day a major struggle will be waged so that none of that occurs and all areas receive mandatory maintenance allowances for education.

Provision is being made in the Education Bill so that when resources are available it could become, by an affirmative resolution of this House and of the other place, a scheme for the whole country. But resources are not available now. The resources now available are sufficient to allow coverage of about 15 per cent of the relevant population.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the principle that authorities must volunteer has had side effects that no one foresaw when it was first determined? Some Tory authorities, including my own in Salop, which include areas of great deprivation and high youth unemployment, refused to volunteer, not on grounds of principle but merely because it is a scheme put forward by a Labour Government.

There is no question of any authority which does not wish to participate being compelled to do so. It is up to the electors of my hon. Friend's constituency to take the appropriate action.

As there is only a very limited quantity of public money available for these purposes, would it not be better if it were allocated on the basis of the child's educational potential, and if it went more to part-time further education than full-time education in school?

The scheme will apply to both schools and colleges of further education. I would be totally opposed to the sort of scheme the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, a sort of 16-plus scholarship.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the most serious problem about educational maintenance awards is the variation between those authorities that face up to their responsibilities and those, such as my own in Kent, which do not? Will not his proposals make that situation far worse?

I do not think that it will make the situation worse. There are limited resources available, and I consider that this will be a valuable experiment in preparation for when the full scheme can come into operation when the resources are available.

Will my hon. Friend publish a list of volunteers? I would be most interested to see whether my own authority, in whose area only 13 per cent of the youngsters go into further and higher education, is prepared to submit its name for consideration.

That may be possible when the final list comes in. To date, 33 authorities in England have firmly indicated that they wish to be considered in the programme.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number of schools registered as charities.

I regret that it would not be possible for the Charity Commissioners readily to identify the total number of school charities from the 126,000 registered charities, but I understand that there are likely to be either registered or excepted charities in respect of, or associated with, the majority of the 8,000 maintained voluntary schools and the 2,300 independent schools.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the Treasury, the Home Office and certainly her Department looked at the whole question of registration of educational establishments as charities and distinguished between those catering for a certain need in the education system and those like a certain school in my constituency where the parents argue for the right to pay for their children's education but expect to be subsidised by the State?

I entirely accept the last point made by my hon. Friend. As she will know, the Treasury, the Home Office and my Department have been considering these matters at length and for some time. Sadly, it has not so far proved possible to do what she suggests.

Will the Minister come to the defence of the public schools, which have made such a great contribution to our national life, particularly in terms of leadership which is, at present, needed in all walks of life?

No, Sir, I will not come to the defence of our public schools.

Is my Friend aware that the Charity Commisisoners, giving evidence to the Select Committee a few years ago, said that it was not right for charitable purposes to be applied to those areas where the State provided? They used roads as an example. Will she discuss with the Charity Commissioners those schools which have such a narrow intake from such a narrow band of society to see whether they are properly charitable in terms of the criteria that the Commissioners set out for the Select Committee?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. I will certainly pursue that point.

Will the Minister confirm that nothing will be done to damage these excellent establishments in view of the fact that their facilities are so widely used by prominent Socialists in our society?

I know of no prominent Socialist who uses the facilities to which the hon. Gentleman refers. It is not a matter of whether the schools would be damaged. It is a matter of whether they should be subsidised by the State.

Further to the matter put by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), does not the Minister realise that the present Labour Government have been the best recruiting sergeant that the independent sector of education has ever had? Will she confirm that any attempt to remove the private sector of education would cost the taxpayers £150 million in additional teaching costs alone, and would also be contrary to the United Nations and the European Declarations of Human Rights?

I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that overall numbers in independent schools are still falling. I must also tell him, as I have informed his hon. Friend, that we are discussing whether the State should subsidise people who wish to send their children to public schools. I believe that we should not.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is yet ready to introduce in the House proposals for reforming the present system for the provision of free school transport.

No, Sir. The administrative and financial implications of possible alternatives are still being examined.

In view of the widespread concern throughout the country about these anomalies, will not the Minister at least give some indication of the lines along which a possible solution might be found?

I think I have told the hon. Gentleman on a number of occasions that the best and most likely workable solution lies with some form of flat-rate arrangement. He is correct to refer to widespread concern. Unfortunately, that concern does not express itself in agreed views.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the present system places a heavy burden on families, particularly when they have children in secondary schools who have just under three miles to travel and primary school children with just under two miles to travel? Will she renew her efforts to obtain some settlement between local authorities and the Government to give some relief to those families?

I am aware of this problem. We are trying to find a solution with the utmost speed.

The Minister could alleviate the situation almost immediaately if she would change the mileage rule to take account of the distance that the bus actually has to travel rather than the simple crow's flight distance which is now the regulation.

I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would cope with all the cases brought to me, particularly in areas where there are no subsidised fares for children and where families face a heavy burden of expenditure.

I know that my hon. Friend is keen to see a new system introduced. Does she agree that many Tory local authorities, such as Bradford, have introduced harsh new alterations to the existing rule which have caused great hardship? Will she draw the attention of the Treasury to the recent Government expenditure paper which demonstrates a £2 billion shortfall in spending for the current year? Could not some of that money be used to provide a national service for transport which would be a great improvement on the existing situation?

I accept that the fact that many local authorities have ceased to use their discretionary powers has caused problems. As for drawing things to the attention of the Treasury, my hon. Friend is so effective in pursuing that activity that I would hardly dare to compete with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she is making with her plans to establish a General Teaching Council.

My right hon. Friend has always taken the view that initiatives towards a teachers' professional council must come from the teachers themselves. She is very ready to consider, in consultation with other interests, any agreed proposals which the teachers' organisations may put forward.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not time for Ministers to proceed with a greater sense of urgency? Would not the creation of an effective professional body be a real help in resolving some of the difficult issues now facing teachers, such as the problems of redundancy and early retirement?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—it could be a help. The difficulty is that there are substantial differences of view between the teachers' organisations. My right hon. Friend could not impose a solution on the teachers. Any such body must grow from what the profession, as a whole, wants. I wish they could make up their minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with safety provisions applying to research funded by the research councils; and what guidance she is proposing to give on this matter.

On 22 January I met representatives of the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils and the chairman of the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group to consider this matter. The councils have stringent procedures for handling dangerous pathogens and other biologically hazardous material in their establishment and are reviewing them in the light of the Shooter report. The chairman of the University Grants Committee has sent copies of the report to all university vice-chancellors asking them to do the same.

Will my right hon. Friend, in the light of that reply, appoint trade union representatives to the UGC? This would ensure that safety was examined. It would also widen the membership of that body away from narrow professional parameters.

Members of the University Grants Committee are appointed on a personal basis, not as representatives of bodies. Trade unionists can be considered for membership. I would like to assure my hon. Friend, on the basis of his question, that the most urgent steps have been taken by the research councils. We have asked the universities through the UGC to take urgent steps to assure themselves of the safety of all laboratories in that sector dealing with dangerous pathogens.

I appreciate the urgent steps taken by my right hon. Friend, but will she take into account the importance of not restricting the research in some of these important areas? Providing that safety is guaranteed and safeguarded, a great deal of research is needed for the prevention of illness.

My hon. Friend has, as usual, pointed to the central problem that we face. On the one side we must assure the safety of the public. On the other hand, we do not want to inhibit experiments and work that might usefully lead to major advances in medical research. I am satisfied that the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council are in complete control of their laboratories and the work going on in them. I would not want, granted that to inhibit this important and useful work.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many people over the age of state retirement have been able to obtain local authority education grants to undertake Open university courses.

My Department does not collect this information.

Will the Department consider my proposition that education provided for non-vocational purposes is likely to be the most worth while of all? Is it not sad that many people in retirement are bored? Would it not be a splendid way to spend their time to pursue a course of study to enrich their lives? Will the Department accept that one is never too old to learn and join me in a campaign to encourage old people to take up opportunities that many of them may have missed earlier in their lives?

I agree. The Open university, one of the finest achievements of the last Labour Government, is open to all, including the elderly. Many of those elderly people left school not at 14 years of age but at 12 or 13 years of age. Society owes them the opportunity to pursue their leisure activities on Open university courses.

Is the Minister correct to say that the Open university is open to all? Does he agree that far too many people who are taking courses at the Open university are teachers rather than those who missed the opportunity of higher education when they left school? Will he bring pressure to bear upon the Secretary of State to see whether a system can be worked out whereby those who are prepared to study in their own time are paid a limited grant by their local authorities? Is he aware that that is not possible at present because local authorities have insufficient funds to grant such mandatory awards?

Most courses at the Open university qualify for discretionary awards, not mandatory awards. Many teachers are pursuing courses which are valuable to them. I would not wish to restrict any section of the community from pursuing such courses.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in Retford, Nottinghamshire.

My right hon. Friend is now considering the Nottinghamshire county council's proposal and expects to announce her decision shortly When she has reached that decision, I shall inform my hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that for two years the Tory county council has deliberately been playing politics with this scheme? Does she agree that this must end? Over £100,000 of public money has already been spent and the delay has caused chronic job insecurity among teachers and two extra years on the 11-plus scheme. Is she aware that the older people in the area are fed up with the delay? Will she put pressure on the county council to implement the original policy?

I accept that delay is undesirable, but my hon. Friend would not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the consultative document "Higher Education into the 1990s"; and if she will make a statement.

My Department and the Scottish Education Department between them have received nearly 300 responses to the discussion document. I have been examining the overall tenor of this very encouraging response in the light of the most recent information about student enrolments and I have accepted an invitation to speak at a conference being organised by The Times Higher Education Supplement, on 5 March about the development of higher education in the next decade or so.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern in many education circles because the document appears to place more emphasis on demographic principles than on education principles? Does she agree that the projected decrease in population should not be used as an excuse for a contraction in the system but that it presents a golden opportunity for an expansion of the system by extending the opportunity for higher education to a larger proportion of the community?

The document dealt with the demographic problems. My hon. Friend will recognise that in model E, which is supported by Ministers, we have clearly indicated our belief that there is an opportunity for a major expansion of adult education, paid educational leave and part-time study in our higher education institutions.

Can the Secretary of State confirm that the projected provision for higher education in the report assumes that the number of 18-year-olds who will be seeking education at universities or polytechnics will increase from about 13 per cent to 18 per cent.—an increase of 5 per cent? Has the Secretary of State seen the representations from many bodies which believe that that proportion is overoptimistic? Does she agree with those representations? If they were proved to be correct, will she review her provision for higher education places?

The hon. Member is correct. The assumption is based on a related age participation rate in higher education of about 18 per cent. In the last two years the figure has not been so impressive. There are some reasons to think that the figure is increasing again.

This is the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the polytechnics. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the real problems in higher education, which the polytechnics have illustrated, is the overwhelming tendency to concentrate resources on three-year undergraduate courses at the expense of day and block release courses? What steps does she intend to take to ensure that that trend is changed?

In the Education Bill, which is now in Committee, consideration is being given to a clause to extend mandatory awards to new areas outside the formal undergraduate group. My hon. Friend also mentioned 16 to 18-year-olds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I have announced our intention to issue a White Paper in the spring on the whole question of day and block release courses for 16 to 18-year-olds. That matter is being urgently considered.

I accept that the next few years will represent a period of consolidation rather than expansion in universities, but what thought has the Secretary of State given to the extension of sandwich courses, particularly at the polytechnics?

I share the hon. and learned Member's concern about sandwich courses. Last year the Government gave additional help to employers to enable them to offer sandwich places. The perpetual problem is that not as many sandwich places are offered as it is possible to take up. I join the hon. and learned Member in saying that it would be helpful if employers more readily came forward with sandwich courses, especially since they often criticise graduates for not having enough knowledge of the world of industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that the current syllabus of teaching in schools prepares pupils adequately for the learning of a skill in adult life.

There is no national syllabus of teaching in schools, but the importance of preparing pupils for working life is being increasingly recognised. The Green Paper "Education in Schools" stressed the importance of the basic skills of numeracy and literacy, and authorities have been asked in my Department's subsequent circular 14/77 to report on steps taken to promote these. Emphasis is being placed on school—industry liaison and curricular developments in mathematics and science. I have recently appointed a committee of inquiry under Dr. Cockcroft into the teaching of mathematics in schools.

Does the Secretary of State agree that the trend under this Government reveals a growing number of unfilled vacancies for skilled motor mechanics and engineers, for example, even when there are about 1½ million unemployed? Does she agree that the best foundation for learning, or wanting to learn a skill, is the quality of the teaching? What steps will she take to ensure that teaching is improved?

I cannot agree. There has been a dramatic increase in the last three years in the number of young people seeking courses in engineering and technology in higher education. This has been the most dramatic increase for many years.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we should be trying to help all pupils to develop their potential to the full and not training them to pass examinations, to run a complicated society or to obtain knowledge about a skill? Does she agree that our job is to give them the opportunity to develop their potential? Is not that what education should he about?

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. She may know that in our Green Paper we said clearly that children should be taught what it is to live in an industrial society, in a democracy and in a multi-racial society. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that many boys and girls are motivated in the last year or so of schooling by the opportunity to study vocational work and skills. We certainly do not wish to stand in the way of their having the opportunity to do that.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that there are those of us in the House from such areas as mine, the Northern area, who for years have said that there is, masking a high unemployment rate, a great shortage of skill? In consequence, we have been advocating that the last two years of the school curriculum should be much more geared to industrial requirements and skills.

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should not wish to gear the last two years only to industrial requirements. However, boys and girls should have the opportunity to start on a process that leads to qualifications for skills in those years if they wish to do so. One of the aims of setting up the inquiry into mathematics, to which I referred in answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), was precisely that mathematics should be devoted to the mathematics of everyday industrial life as well as to the more abstract requirements that are demanded, for example, by A-level courses.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good basic education of broad character in the earlier years is one of the finest preparations for future life? Does she agree that we must guard against too early specialisation and against using education to fill slots in unemployment on a narrow basis, which could be interpreted as the view of some hon. Members?

My hon. Friend is right, in the sense that a broad education is much the best thing that we can give children in a rapidly changing technological society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking a supplementary question that enables me further to clarify my argument. Where boys and girls in their last year at school would benefit from some secondment to, for example, a further education college, the schools and colleges should work together to make that possible. As we all know, there are boys and girls of great ability who find the more academic type of course not attractive to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is satisfied with the extent and quantity of language tuition in schools.

The Green Paper "Education in Schools" drew attention to the key importance of language skills. My Department's subsequent circular 14/77 on authorities' curricula arrangements invited them to indicate their policies to promote the development of English and modern languages in schools. When the results of this review are available these issues will be the subject of further consultations.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied with the scope and extent of the proposals that have been put forward by the European Commission for the development of a Community programme? Is not the Commission's programme somewhat timid? Could not a great deal more be done by way of developing teacher exchanges, a programme of assistantes and similar methods?

The European programme makes a useful contribution. I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument that we would not wish to rest only on what is being proposed by the Commission. We intend to examine our own proposals.

Has consideration been given at any stage to the experimental introduction of the teaching of Esperanto into certain schools? Is she aware that, where that has been taught, it has greatly increased the keenness of pupils to learn other languages as they find that they can achieve success in languages?

Some authorities have tried that experiment. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that it is for authorities rather than my Department to undertake experiments in curricula development.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that Her Majesty's inspectorate's report on modern languages in secondary schools states that the results are in no way commensurate with the physical and human resources involved? Is she aware that only one in 10 pupils starting languages in our secondary schools achieve O-level or CSE grade 1 passes? As we have entered the Common Market, is not that bad?

It is bad whether or not it has anything to do with the Common Market. We recognise the defects of modern language teaching in our schools, as we all must. We must try to correct the defects.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the schools are more successful in equipping their pupils with skills in language and other necessary activities than ever before? Although it is unfashionable to express that view and although that is not the view purveyed by Opposition Members or the media, does she agree that our schools are achieving a great deal more than that for which they are given credit?

My hon. Friend is correct. Better opportunities are being offered to more children than ever before. Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that the opportunities and the successes that they bring are still not as great as we would wish.

Is the Minister aware of the family learning system that is being pioneered by the Institute of European Education at St. Martin's training college, Lancaster, which can make a valuable contribution to language learning? Will she encourage its extension to other parts?

We are aware of the project, which we find interesting. We wish to study it to ascertain whether it may usefully be extended as the hon. Lady suggests.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 6 February.

In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be taking the opportunity today to clear up the confusion that has been created in local government circles and within his Cabinet following his ambiguous remarks at the weekend on local authority pay settlements? Has he seen that Mr. Alan Fisher has already interpreted that speech as giving the green light for settlements up to 14 per cent Is that so? If not, will he repudiate Mr. Fisher and give a firm pledge of his full support to local authority employers who will be standing firm against unreasonable and inflationary demands of that sort in the interests of their ratepayers?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking me about that. I am sorry if my remarks on Saturday led to any confusion. They were intended to be a clarification on a firm basis. It is not the first time that that sort of thing has gone adrift. I said and meant that the Government have told the employers that they are prepared to finance their share of an offer of 8·8 per cent. through the rate support grant. I wish the House to know exactly what was in my mind when I went a little further. As an old negotiator I know that sometimes—[Interruption.] Hold it. We are talking about serious matters. I know that another 0·1 per cent. or 0·2 per cent. may bring a settlement that otherwise would not be achieved. A margin is needed at the negotiating edge. That is what I meant. Unfortunately, that is not what was interpreted. Some seemed to think that the sky was the limit. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of making that clear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that events now would seem like a holiday compared with what would occur if the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and her friends inside and outside the House took over? Will he acknowledge that low-paid public service workers started a campaign months ago, held meetings, demonstrations, marches and even a lobby of Parliament? Does he agree that it appears that meaningful notice was not taken until they went on strike? Is not that a sad state of affairs? Cannot we have some early warning system and cannot notice be taken of these issues long before matters come to a head?

My hon. Friend foreshortens history a little. He will remember that I said at the Labour Party conference that, in view of what had been said at conference and elsewhere, there was a case for reviewing the special position of the low-paid. It was in January, long before there was action, that the Government came forward and said that they thought that there should be a special position for the low-paid. The main element of that was an underpinning, which could be consolidated both into the bonus and overtime rates, of £3·50. It is not right to say that we waited for industrial action before an improvement was made. It is that that helps to make up the 8·8 per cent. to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) referred.

The Prime Minister was reported as saying in his speech on Saturday that no one should be reluctant to put forward new ideas or even ones that had been considered previously and rejected. When he said that, did he have in mind Cmnd. 3888 entitled "In Place of Strife". If not, what did he have in mind?

I did not have a particular Command Paper in mind. There are a number of ideas that have been discussed in the past and rejected that in view of the present situation may be revived. At present we are engaged in some useful talks with the trade unions. It is important that they should have the opportunity of commenting on some of the ideas. Let us see what emerges from that. I am not without some hopes of advance.

Will the Prime Minister take time today to discuss with his colleagues the question of the by-election at Liverpool, Edge Hill, and its date? Does not he think it is time that the voters of Edge Hill had a democratic representative in this House, especially bearing in mind the serious economic problems facing that constituency? Now that the dirty tricks department of the Labour Party in Liverpool has failed so miserably there is no excuse for delaying the by-election any longer.

There is a convention in the House under which these matters are dealt with. I do not propose to depart from it.

Could my right hon. Friend, in spite of his current difficulties, spare time from his engagements today to plead for the life of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Bhutto? Does he not agree that it would be tragic indeed if Pakistan fell apart in civil war?

Sentence was passed on Mr. Bhutto in March. After my visit to Pakistan last January and in view of my personal relationship with General Zia, I had personal correspondence with him on this matter, which has since continued. Today I have officially made representations to General Zia—I am sure that he will understand why—that he should as an act of clemency spare the life of Mr. Bhutto. General Zia is a wise man. The consequences of clemency will be more beneficial to his country than carrying out the strict application of the law.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the Trades Union Congress.

I met representatives of the TUC yesterday and will meet them again tomorrow when I take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Has the Prime Minister yet discussed with the TUC the offer of support from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and from this side of the House for new laws and new practices to deal with picketing, the closed shop and secret ballots before strike action? If not, why not?

These issues are being discussed with the trade unions at present. However, there is a difference between us as to whether the law is the best method of handling this situation on these matters.

Does not the Prime Minister agree that the real issue at present is not about the strength of trade unions or picketing but rather the fact that a high percentage of people receive very low wages indeed? Is not the answer to this problem to give these people a realistic wage?

Both issues cause concern at the moment, especially the way in which members of trade unions are able to hold up the life of the community. That is a very serious matter. Secondly, there is public concern about the low pay of many public service and other workers. Hence the Government's offer to finance and increase the part of the contribution paid to the local authorities.

Will not the Prime Minister now accept that recent events have shown that codes of practice on picketing are just not enough? If he has not already done so, will he take time to read the recent speech of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, who pointed out that the law at the moment is not sufficient to protect the right of the worker to go about his ordinary business without interference, that it is virtually unenforceable without the presence of the police on every picket line—they cannot do that—and that sweeping changes in the law are needed?

I promise the right hon. Lady that if the country went down that road we should be in no better case than we are today. I was putting the matter at its lowest. I beg the right hon. Lady to consider very carefully before she calls for sweeping changes in the law. I agree with her that the trouble with some codes that have been published has been, not that they were deficient, but that they were not observed. The right hon. Lady runs the danger that she might bring the law into contempt if it is not observed.

The danger that the country runs is that the Prime Minister will do nothing about the situation. Does he not realise that if the law is unenforceable he must change it so that it is easier for the police to enforce? The chief constable of Greater Manchester says that the law is virtually unenforceable at present.

This argument will go on. I am glad that it will do so. I do not wish to see the country repeat the fatal mistake that was made with the legislation of 1971–72. Surely we have all learned from those experiences.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the crude attitude of the Leader of the Opposition to the trade unions would mean that the present situation would look like a vicar's tea party compared with what it would be if she were ever in office?

It is always my hope that any institution, and certainly the trade unions, will accept whatever laws are passed by Parliament. That having been stated as a principle, we know that there must be assent for these laws. I beg the Opposition to consider the past in these matters and try to find a voluntary way forward. That will be better for our country in the long run.

asked the Prime Minister when he next hopes to discuss the European monetary system with his European Economic Community colleagues.

I have at present no plans to discuss the European monetary system with Heads of Government of other European Economic Community countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I am glad to get a cheer from the Opposition.

When my right hon. Friend next talks about the system with his colleagues, will he confirm the spirit of his remarks in the House on 6 December that Her Majesty's Government regret and take no pleasure in the fact that a system could not be devised for full British participation? In view of the decisions by the Irish and Italian Governments since then to change their minds on going in, will he undertake, if the system gets off the ground, to reconsider the British position?

We should always look at the question of the European monetary system against the best interests of our own country. It was because we felt it was not in the best interests of Britain that we did not enter the system. We felt that there must be other adjuncts to the system, namely, a greater convergence in the economies of the various countries and also in the monetary backing that is given to developing regions and elsewhere. Until these things are done, it is very unlikely that we shall be able to change our minds on whether it is worth while for this country to enter.

As the Prime Minister will not find time to discuss the European monetary system, will he utilise his time in discussing urgently with the Trades Union Congress the ineffectiveness of the emergency service under the ambulance system—

Order. Even I cannot allow that.