HC Deb 10 July 1962 vol 662 cc1150-279

3.33 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

In this debate, the Opposition wish to examine education as it is in Scotland. We wish to discuss its most serious defects, and I hope that we shall be able to offer constructive suggestions.

Today, the most serious problem in Scottish education is the shortage of teachers. We find from the Report on Education in Scotland, 1961, that the shortage in 1960 was 3,673. By 1966, instead of that shortage having been reduced, it will have mounted to 5,000. In 1975, which is a long time away, the shortage, according to the Report, will be between 6,000 and 7,000 teachers.

These figures show the extent of the shortage if no further changes are made in education, but if further changes are made the shortage will be even more serious. For instance, if we were to raise the school-leaving age to 16—and the Government have said that that is their priority—we should need, apart from those I have already mentioned, an extra 4,500 to 5,000 teachers, if we were to leave that aside, but to bring in compulsory part-time education—and I think that we are all most anxious that that should be done—we should need an extra 1,500 teachers. If we were to reduce classes to the size of 30 pupils, we might need another 10,000 teachers.

These are staggering figures, but when we turn to the shortage among specialist teachers we find a particularly gave position. The shortage is most acute in teachers of mathematics—at present 18.4 per cent. In technical subjects, which are of the greatest importance to the well-being of our nation, apart from the educational aspects, there is a shortage of 16.3 per cent., and in commerce there is a shortage of 24.7 per cent. We are told, on page 72 of the Report: Within the general shortages, the worsening supply of Chapter V teachers of mathematics and the quite inadequate number of Chapter VI teachers of commerce, homecraft and music give particular cause for anxiety. It seems, therefore, that the Government feel that there is some cause for anxiety in this great shortage.

If we turn to the question of oversize classes, we find that in the primary schools in Scotland there are 662 classes with between 46 and 50 pupils; there are 53 classes with between 51 and 55 pupils; there are four classes with between 56 and 60 pupils; and there are 10 classes in which over 60 children are sitting—and I use the word "sitting" advisedly. I know from my own experience as a teacher that it is impossible, in classes with such numbers, to give each child the individual attention which it should have. In the secondary schools there are 570 oversized classes.

I also find in the Report that there has been an increase in the number of graduates we are attracting to teaching. The total recruitment of graduates last year to our Scottish schools was 891, which was 33 per cent. higher than 5 years ago. We welcome that increase. It is good to find that as there is an increase in the output of graduates from our universities, teaching seems to attract the same proportion each year, which means that in numbers we are getting an increase.

I think that there is a lesson to be learned from this by the Government, but I am afraid that up to now they have shown no sign of learning it. In the debate last year other hon. Members and myself urged the Government to follow the advice of their own expert committees. The Government have had many reports during the last few years from expert committees set up by them. I have no intention today of going into the details of that advice; those who wish to find it will do so if they look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate of last year. Recommendations were made in the interim Report of the Knox Committee in 1957, and I am certain that if the Government had followed them there would have been an increase in the number of graduates coming from our universities, and that that would have increased the number of graduates entering the teaching profession.

The first recommendation was that there should be more generous school bursaries. The second recommendation concerned pensions for the wives and dependants of teachers. The third recommendation was that graduates who wished to become teachers should be given financial assistance at the same rate as the Department of Scientific Research gives to its people.

These were three specific recommendations. The Government continue to ignore them. Yet their own committee felt that if the Government followed these recommendations there was every possibility of the pool of graduates being increased.

I want to say something about financial aid to those attending school after normal school-leaving age. Last year, over 25,000 left such courses. I was astounded to find that 3,500 pupils attending the fourth and fifth year courses, not the junior secondaries, completed their second year but not their third year about 7,500 completed their third year but not their fourth year; 3,500 completed their fourth year, but not their fifth year. Taking these three together, 14,500 of our young people, the majority of whom at the age of 12 had been considered fit to take a higher leaving certificate to fit them to enter universities, left school before completing the course.

Are the Government concerned to discover how many potential graduates were among this 14,500? I know only too well that grants are not the only answer. I am never tired of stressing the importance of home influence, the influence of parents, in keeping children at school. The Special Committee of the Secretary of State made the firm recommendation that better high school bursaries would encourage at least a proportion of these school leavers to remain at school to take their higher leaving certificate. Is the Secretary of State going to tell us today that at last he has realised the importance of a very special increase in school bursaries? If not, he is not taking the shortage of teachers and the lack of a proper pool of educated manpower as seriously as he should be.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

Does the hon. Lady agree that we send about 35 per cent. of our children to senior secondary schools, which is a much higher percentage than nearly every other country in the world? There are certain to be quite a few of them who fall by the wayside because they should strictly be on a different, non-certificated course.

Miss Herbison

What the hon. Member says backs up something which I shall deal with later.

These children underwent an examination and it was decided that they were fit for a four or a five year course. Some of them fall by the wayside educationally. As a teacher, I know that only too well. Some of them fall by the wayside because there is not the good parental influence which I should like to see in every home. However, I am convinced, and the Special Committee was convinced, that quite a number of them leave school because of the financial position at home. That is the only point with which I am dealing at present. I hope that the Secretary of State is fully seized of it.

We find from the Report that the Government have set up a working party to examine the whole question of pensions for wives and dependants. I urge the Government not to pigeon-hole whatever report comes from the working party, because one of the outstand- ing grievances of teachers in Scotland is the fact that no provision is made for their wives and dependent children.

Because of the emergency, the time spent by honours graduates at training colleges was cut from three terms to two terms. I have not found that those who had only two terms' training are any worse teachers than those who had three terms. Yet the Government—I know they did this because of a promise they made—have returned to three term training for honours graduates. The result is that there has been a fall in the number of honours graduates entering training colleges.

The Government ought to have been sufficiently strong to say to the Educational Institute of Scotland and to the colleges of education, "This crisis is still very much with us. If, by keeping two terms instead of three, we can attract even a few more graduates, we ask you to bear with us for some years so that we can have these extra graduates each year". I ask the Secretary of State to make a statement today on this matter. Will he now have the courage to go to these bodies and say, "It is of the greatest importance that we do everything possible to attract honours graduates into the teaching profession"?

Even if the Government were willing to adopt forthwith the measures which I have just touched on, the real stumbling block then would be the lack of university places, because quite a number of those going through our schools find that there is no place for them in a university. I am dealing with the question of university places only as it affects the supply of teachers. The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that in Scotland there is an adequate supply of teachers.

I want to quote from some statements which have been made on the inadequacy of places in Scottish universities. Mr. Reece, of Aberdeen University, who is at present the President of the Association of University Teachers, made a speech to the Association's summer school in which he called for an investigation into the possiblity of devising some means of financing universities which would not place them—here I quote his own words— completely at the mercy of the unimaginative and parsimonious spirit that periodically pervades the Treasury. No one on this side of the Committee could use stronger language than this.

Mr. Reece spoke about the slowing up of capital grants, the cutting of recurrent grants which are recommended by the University Grants Committee, and the new salary scale for university teachers. He finished by saying this: By 1967 the proportion of sixth formers going to university would be even lower than today. Does the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the supply of teachers in Scotland, accept any responsibility for the smaller proportion of sixth formers going to universities in 1967?

Sir Malcolm Knox, Principal of St. Andrew's University, talking about the cuts in recurrent expenditure, and the slowing down of capital investment in universities, said: It is now clear that many of the applicants are going to be disappointed because the building programme for 1962–65 is being slowed down. We are concerned to make it plain that any blame for this disappointment rests on the Government. In other words, the people who are concerned with Scottish university education are trying, by word and action, to tell the Scottish people that in this instance the universities are not to blame, but that the cause is the Government's parsimonious attitude.

It has been roughly estimated that to provide these extra places would need a mere £10 million a year—even less than the Supplementary Vote for farm subsidies this year. The Secretary of State, and the Minister of Education—because the same criticism can be applied to England—should tell the Cabinet, "This sum of £10 million each year is absolutely necessary for our universities." If the two right hon. Gentlemen were really seized of the importance of providing those university places, but found that the Cabinet was not willing to agree, they would be in honour bound to resign their positions. Only shock tactics like that will bring home to the Government the very great need there is to provide those places.

There are other ways in which we could help the teacher shortage. Where praise can be given, I give it, and it is true that the Government have done a great deal to try to attract married women back to teaching. One of the obstacles in that path—apart from the tax position, with which I shall not deal —is that quite a number of married women find it difficult to give five full days of teaching each week. When there is such a grave shortage—and the gravest shortage is, in the main, in our big industrial areas—the Secretary of State and his Department should be using all their influence to get each education authority to work towards giving those married women who are willing to come back and work a week of five half days, or two and a half days out of the week, the chance of rendering their valuable services to our children.

I know, as a teacher, that that is not easy. There are very great difficulties in planning timetables and curricula to fit in with it, but those difficulties are as nothing compared with the educational problems now facing us. I hope that, apart from the very fine publicity they have been using during the past year, the Secretary of State and his Department will exert all their influence on education authorities to make such special arrangements for married women.

I praise the Educational Institute of Scotland for asking our four Scottish universities to give extra-mural degrees to Scottish students. The Scottish universities turned down that suggestion, and I agree with their reason for doing so. Those who wish to take that type of degree—almost a degree by correspondencie—have a long-standing example in London, but many students need much more help in achieving graduate status than they can possibly get by studying on their own for a London degree.

The Educational Institute of Scotland, again trying to help, suggested that the universities might provide evening classes so that people—not just uncertificated teachers, but those in industry who wish to take a degree—could do so in their leisure time. The universities have said that they are willing to consider that suggestion if there is proof that there are numbers of people who wish to take advantage of it. How in the name of goodness can one get that proof except by instituting the courses?

The position is parlous. We need a crash programme, and the universities can play an important part in it. I know that we would be putting a heavy burden on university lecturers and professors, but I think that they are seized of our parlous position, and should be ready for some years to carry their part of the burden in ensuring that we get the improvements in education we so sincerely wish to have.

It may mean that the Treasury will have to give more money for extra time and for extra lecturers, but the Secretary of State and his Department should help the Educational Institute a Scotland here by ensuring that serious discussions take place which may lead to the chance of quit a number of people who wish still to continue with their work being able to take degrees. I know that we have a special recruitment scheme for teachers, but many of these people would prefer to continue at their own work until they had achieved graduate status.

School building presents a very great problem. Ever since 1951, the Government have adopted a stop-and-go policy. At one moment, the red light against building is put up to every education authority in Scotland. A year or so later, those authorities get the green light. They just cannot plan a building programme with a Government whose policy at one time is retraction and, at another time, expansion.

We can find in the Government's own Report the importance they attach to good buildings in helping better education. In page 18 we read: Where new schools have been opened or extensions added the position has been greatly eased, but even at some of these schools additional temporary accommodation has been necessary. Even the new schools have needed additional temporary accommodation. The Report goes on: While progress in the building of a further number of new schools holds out the prospect of an end to such overcrowded conditions, there are other schools, some very seriously substandard, where no start has yet been made either on a new building or on the extension and improvement of existing accommodation. Seriously substandard buildings—that is a bold statement.

If we turn to page 36, we find: Nothing is more striking than the remarkable improvement effected in a school by its transfer from inadequate, uncomfortable and unattractive premises to one of the pleasant, well-designed, airy buildings which are now being provided. The change in the pupils' attitude towards school, in their daily conduct and bearing, and indeed in their whole outlook has been commented on most favourably by teachers, parents, and inspectors. There are two sides to it, and the only way in which we shall get for all our children the improvements that are stated in that paragraph is by the Government's being ready to spend much more on the building of new schools. No doubt, the Secretary of State will tell us how much money has been spent and how much money the Government intend to spend.

Again, I look at the Report and I find that the projects started in the primary, and secondary schools of all kinds in 1959 were worth almost £15 million. In 1960, the figure had dropped to under £13 million, and in 1961 it had dropped about another £500,000. These are the schools that people are waiting for. If we look at the projects completed, in 1959 we find that the expenditure was about £11¼ million, in 1960 it was about £13½ million, but in 1961 the projects completed on primary and secondary schools had dropped to £10¼ million.

These figures do not give us any heartening, and it will be no use the Secretary of State telling us how much the Government are spending when we look at those three years and we find what is now happening with regard to the provision of schools in Scotland.

As to the general grant, quite a number of local authorities say that this is hopelessly inadequate in its provision for school building. I quote from the rector of a senior secondary school in Lanarkshire. He said this only last week, at a prize-giving: Our present building was not built to cater for the needs of senior-secondary pupils and the consequence is that we have to make-do on a scale that is prejudicial to efficient teaching. We have no library; we have no assembly hall our rooms for practical subjects are largely classrooms converted to their present use. Science rooms, for example, are scattered throughout the building and much time is inevitably lost in movement of pupils around the school. We have no common room for senior pupils. Lavatory provision is primitive, staff rooms are inadequate. Both pupils and staff work under great difficulty and it is due to the untiring zeal of staff and pupils that we have achieved the excellent results that we have achieved in former years. What a picture that is! This is a school where the children of constituents of mine and of the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) attend. It is a shocking picture and it shows how very great is the need for a new school in the area. I give just another instance. The change of venue for the prize- giving "— said the chairman— was necessitated by the totally inadequate accommodation of the school. The need for a new school had been talked about since shortly after the last war but due to the curtailment of educational expenditure by the Government, the new school seemed to be as far away as ever. These are shocking conditions both for our teachers and for our children.

When we turn to the position in Lanarkshire and Fifeshire in the new towns we find, in answer to Questions that we have raised, a disproportionate amount of the money that these authorities are spending on school building had to go to the new towns. The Under- Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was having consultations about this. I should like to know whether those consultations are completed and whether any special measures are to be taken to ease the burden on education authorities which have new towns in their areas.

I now turn to the promotion of our children at 12 years of age. In December, 1961, a Report was made on the transfer from primary to secondary schools. That was an important Report. I hope that it is one that the Secretary of State and every education authority in Scotland will examine carefully and try to follow its recommendations. It states, on page 29: A previous Advisory Council in 1947 recommended the adoption of the comprehensive school for the first four years of secondary education and pointed out that 'the omnibus secondary school best embodies the ideals of the new age; and, except where impracticable, we prefer it to any other type of organisation'. This type of organisation certainly eliminates some of the ill-effects of transfer schemes.… That is the feeling of the Committee that reported in December, 1961. In other words, the Advisory Council of 1947 and a Committee of the Advisory Council of 1961 are really making a recommendation for comprehensive education in Scotland. The Secretary of State must be aware that parents and pupils are becoming increasingly concerned about this segregation between junior secondary and senior secondary at 12 years of age. In 1961, we are told that there were 131 appeals and the Secretary of State confirmed the promotion board's decisions in 100 cases. That means that at least 100 children of parents were extremely dissatisfied. I have no doubt that there were many more who did not appeal to the Secretary of State. I would say that there is no equality of opportunity for children as between one education authority and another in the provision of senior secondary education.

When we examine the proportion of pupils that are allocated to senior secondary schools, we find that there is a wide disparity between one education authority and another in Scotland. In Caithness, 49 per cent. of all secondary pupils in the first year were in senior secondary schools. In Clackmannan, in the same year, the figure was 18 per cent. In Fife, it was 24 per cent., and in Lanarkshire, 32 per cent.

Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Is the situation in any way related to the fact that certain local authorities refuse to build adequate senior secondary accommodation, so limiting the relevant percentage?

Miss Herbison

There are a number of factors to be considered, and I hope to refer to the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

The percentages vary from 18 per cent. to 49 per cent. As for the cities, Aberdeen has 24 per cent.; Dundee, 26 per cent.; Edinburgh, 30 per cent., and Glasgow—best of all—46 per cent. I have no doubt that some of these very high figures are accounted for by the fact that in areas like Glasgow many secondary pupils are educated in comprehensive schools. Therefore, the first count on which I condemn segregation at 12 years of age is that the opportunity of promotion to senior secondary or comprehensive schools depends on the part of Scotland in which a child lives. That situation ought not to exist.

On page 37, the Report states that It is by no means yet generally appreciated that junior secondary education is a distinctive and integral part of the secondary system, and too many people still appear to think of it rather as some kind of inferior appendage.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White) indicated assent.

Miss Herbison

The Under-Secretary of State nods. He seems to think that people should not take that view.

If we turn back we find, in the same Report, a valid reason why it is considered to be an inferior appendage. Under the heading "Staffing", on page 36, the Report says: The most serious difficulty which the schools "— that is, the junior secondary schools— have had to face is the shortage of teachers. In October, 1961, the number of certificated teachers required to reduce over-sized classes, to replace uncertificated teachers and to fill other vacancies in secondary schools was estimated to be 3,810, and non-certificate courses as a rile have had to bear more than a proportionate share of the burden. Authorities generally feel obliged to give priority to the needs of the pupils following certificate courses, since it is from them that all the professions, including the teaching profession, depend for their recruits. Moreover, very many secondary schools teachers prefer senior secondary work. There is one very valid reason why many consider a junior secondary school to be an inferior appendage. Parity of staffing as between senior secondary schools and junior secondary schools just does not exist.

There are many other reasons. For example, there are 2,107 uncertificated teachers in Scotland. In Renfrewshire, there are 148, of whom 68 are considered to be below standard. Six uncertificated teachers are in senior secondary schools and 69 are in junior secondary schools. Lanarkshire has 317 uncertificated teachers, 153 of whom are seriously below standard—even the standard of uncertificated teachers. There are 42 uncertificated teachers in senior secondary schools and 209 in junior secondary schools. Fifeshire has 242 uncertificated teachers, 94 of whom are below standard. There are only 11 in the senior secondary schools, whereas there are no fewer than 131 in the junior secondary schools. Furthermore, only two who are below standard are in the senior secondary schools, whereas there are 59 in the junior secondary schools.

I have given the figures for only three educational authorities, but I think that I have made it clear why, on the second count, I condemn segregation. It is because the standard of staffing of our junior secondary schools is infinitely poorer than it is in the senior secondary schools.

The effect of this segregation in primary schools is that teachers, naturally, wish pupils to do well in the promotion examination. They want to get as many as possible into the senior secondary schools and the result is often the distortion of the curriculum by over-concentration on those subjects in which the children will be examined. But there is an even worse side to the question. It often means concentration upon those pupils who are most likely to make the senior secondary grade. In effect, segregation sometimes appears in the primary schools a year or eighteen months before the promotion test. Under the present system of segregation we cannot blame the teachers for the detrimental results which flow from it. The third count on which I condemn segregation, therefore, is that it often leads to most serious ill-effects in primary education.

What does the Secretary of State hope to achieve by the introduction of the O-level examination? I hope that one of his aims is to encourage more children to remain at school. If it is, I can tell him that he will be hindered in his aim by continuing segregation. In that part of the Report dealing with junior secondary schools, we find, in the last paragraph, that These advances are greatly to be welcomed; yet a feeling of disappointment must remain that after five years, progress is still so slow and so uneven. Many children enter these schools already with a sense of failure. The Report shows that although there are a few bright spots the horizon is still a very dull one. This is not the atmosphere in which to encourage our young people to remain at school. Only education in some form of comprehensive school—and I am not dogmatic as to the form it should take—will ensure that an increased number of our young people remain at school.

Glasgow is the one local authority that has gone ahead with the provision of comprehensive schools. It asked for a report on the question, and although the report is now about two years out of date I still regard it as important that the Secretary of State should know what it has to say about children remaining at school. It says: There appears to be a small but growing desire on the part of pupils following the three-year course "— that is, those who are in comprehensive schools— to ask to return for a fourth year. Shortage of staff prevents any encouragement of this trend. Is it not that an education authority that really is providing the kind of education that makes children want to stay at school is forced to say that shortage of staff prevents it from encouraging children to do so? Surely that is shocking. Some head teachers are most concerned that they cannot make provision for this emerging need. So there, in Glasgow, we find that some of the children who are in comprehensive schools and who would normally have gone to junior secondary schools are asking for a fourth year, and it is from those pupils we would hope greatly to increase the number taking the O-level examinations. Therefore, the fourth count on which I condemn segregation is that it will militate against many more pupils remaining at school to take the O-level.

The Secretary of State—at least, the Government—had a Report in 1947 advising comprehensive education; he has had another Report fourteen years later. How much longer are we to wait to have this type of education in Scotland? It seems to me that the Secretary of State and his Department can use their influence with the education authorities to ensure that we do have it.

I have taken too long, but I just want to say a few words about technical education. Again, many of us feel that if we are to encourage our children in junior secondary schools and senior secondary schools or comprehensive schools to take a real interest in technical education we have got to have greater co-ordination between the work which they do in their final years at school and what they will do in any form of further vocational education which is offered to them. We have not enough of that today. I find that the Secretary of State has set up another committee to examine this and to report. The Department's Report is full of mention of committees. Well, I hope that that report comes very quickly indeed, and that the Secretary of State will use his influence on this question of the curricula in the schools, because it is only if we catch the imagination and interest of our young people that we shall have them continue to seek further vocational education when they leave school.

I see that the day-release figures are slightly improved, and we all welcome that, but they are still very poor indeed. Another committee of the Secretary of State has now advised compulsory registration of certain categories of young workers for whom technical education is necessary and for whom courses are ready. Is the Secretary of State going to act on that immediately? It is important that he should act, and on this I shall make the last quotation that I shall make today.

This is from the Rector of Wishaw High School, one of our senior secondary school teachers. This is what he has to say: Without undue optimism we can predict that there will be a vast increase in the number of certificate holders, but the chances of suitable employment for them are bleak. We, who have encouraged these pupils to stay on at school and make the most of their capacity, have surely some obligation in the matter: otherwise we lay ourselves open to something very near deception. That was on the question of their getting jobs. He went on: A possible solution would be the provision of plenty of full-time places in further education technical colleges, but the new one for this area has still to be built. What an indictment. Here is a headmaster taking his responsibilities seriously, praising his staff and his pupils for their excellent results, and realising that there will not be jobs for these young people nor will there be the important alternative of further education —because the college is not built.

We intend to vote this evening, because although the right hon. Gentleman may trot out many figures to show the good side, the bad side of education in Scotland is so very bad that the Government can he indicted in many matters. It is because we feel so strongly about this that we intend to vote against the Government.

4.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

Until very nearly the concluding remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) I felt that I should be able to say that with a very large part of her speech I was in substantial agreement, but she will not expect me for one moment to agree with her final strictures on the Government. I can only feel that somebody's Division lists must he short and that hon. Members opposite are feeling that they ought to vote about something.

Of course, I recognise that there are grave difficulties and problems in Scottish education at the moment. I think that the hon. Lady herself, in approaching some of the problems with which we are faced, did recognise the type of difficulty which we are up against. They are, in fact, difficulties common to every civilised country.

I quite agree that it is the hon. Lady's right and her duty to criticise constructively what the Government of the day are trying to do to overcome the difficulties, and I propose in my speech to indicate briefly what we are doing. I listened with intense interest to what the hon. Lady had to say about the teacher shortage and the problems related to it, and I shall study it again afterwards, because she touched on matters we are giving a great deal of attention to, and which I shall examine again, being as constructive as possible, as, I believe, the hon. Lady was trying to be, in a very difficult situation. The problems of Scottish education are serious enough and sufficiently apparent. As I have said, they are just those problems which beset a service grappling with tasks greater in scale and complexity than ever before have been experienced, and in this, I repeat, Scottish education is in identically the same position as that in almost every other advanced country in the world today.

Our continuing task has obviously got to be to give our young peple the best possible preparation for life in the rapidly changing and highly complex world in which they are to live. I shall devote most of what I say this afternoon to an examination of how we are tackling this and I shall be touching on a great many of the points which the hon. Lady mentioned in her very interesting speech.

I will start with the questions of teachers and buildings. Of these two I propose to deal, first, with the one which is the less difficult, which is building, although it presents its own problems. The hon. Lady said that I would trot out figures to show what has happened. I propose to do so, because it is necessary to realise just what is happening.

The total value of work done in 1961—this is not the figure which the hon. Lady used, but it is one we normally use for testing achievement in any given year—was £13¾ million, which represents the greatest amount of educational building work so far achieved in any year. Within this total, work on technical and commercial colleges accounted for £1½ million, which was double the corresponding amount for the previous year.

Twenty-six new primary schools and 10 new secondary schools were completed, and alterations and extensions were carried out at a further 81 primary and 91 secondary schools. All this work has provided 39,000 new pupil places, bringing the total amount of new accommodation provided since the end of the war to 480,000 places, sufficient for more than half the number of pupils now in our schools.

I know very well indeed that some schools are still far below what we should like, but the figures I have quoted do show real progress, and it is progress we intend to keep up. The hon. Lady referred particularly to one school—I personally know others as bad—but the fact is that we are steadily overtaking this work. With the best will in the world, it is simply not possible to achieve everything at once.

A more formidable problem even than the provision of buildings is the supply of teachers. I agree with the hon. Lady that, as is said in the Report, the outlook is most disturbing. This session we have had just over 38,300 certificated teachers in service, an increase of 684 over the previous session. As to the shortage—I should like to define it rather carefully and hope that hon. Members will note the definition; by it I mean the number of teachers needed to fill vacancies, reduce oversize classes and replace uncertificated teachers and teachers over 70 years of age. The shortage has risen and is now 3,810, and it will rise still higher.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, the other figures are those which the Standing Committee on the Supply of Teachers estimated in its Fourth Report. It estimated that, although the number of teachers in service would rise to about 40,000 in 1966 and to over 43,000 in 1975, the demand would increase even faster to 45,000 in 1966 and almost 50.000 in 1975.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about oversize classes. What standard size of class is he working on, and is it uniform?

Mr. Maclay

I should not like to give a snap answer to that question, because there are some variations. I am not entirely certain what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind about the size of class.

Mr. Grimond

The Secretary of State attached great importance to the definition of the shortage of teachers, and as part of the definition he has referred to the number of teachers in addition who are required to bring down the numbers in the oversize classes. I should like to know what standard size of class he is working on.

Mr. Maclay

Certain standard sizes of class have been used for all these purposes. I have not the actual figures with me. They vary slightly according to circumstances. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman is supplied with the exact figures for different sizes of class.

The difference between the numbers that we expect to have and those we shall need to achieve the standards that we want will, therefore, become about 5,000 in 1966 and 7,000 in 1975. Unfortunately, these figures take no account of the extra teachers that we shall need to reduce the prescribed class sizes further below the level to which we are working at the moment, or to raise the school-leaving age. Even when every allowance is made for the speculative nature of forecasts of this kind—they are bound to be speculative so many years ahead—there is no doubt that the figures give cause for serious concern.

There are four principal causes of this increasing problem. First, there is the very heavy loss of young women teachers through earlier marriage. Between 1957 and 1961, in spite of the record recruitment of women teachers, the number of single women in service actually fell by just on 800. Six years after having been trained, only about one-third of women teachers may be expected still to be single. This may be a good thing from certain points of view, but it presents a very serious problem in relation to the supply of teachers.

Secondly, there will be the abnormally heavy losses through retirals in the next ten years or so, particularly among graduates. There is a variety of reasons for it. It is one of the waves of age distribution in the population.

Third and fourth, there are the factors now known as the "bulge" and the "trend". The first "bulge", the sharp postwar rise in the birth rate, has been followed by a second which shows no sign of ending. On top of this is the "trend"—the tendency for more and more pupils to stay on at school after the age of 15. We all welcome this, but it imposes immediate additional demands on our limited teaching force.

This is the grave problem which is facing us, as it is almost every other advanced country. I do not think that anybody believes that there is any one simple solution—in a free society, anyway. We must all think about it constructively and try to arrive at sensible and practical solutions. I am very glad indeed that the Educational Institute of Scotland has decided to set up an ad hoc committee to formulate suggestions, and I shall be most interested to learn its conclusions in due course. For myself, I have already met representatives of the three Scottish teachers' associations for an exploratory discussion about the whole matter—it was very useful—and a further meeting is to take place later, probably in the autumn, when, I hope, we shall be ready to get down to the whole subject in more detail. In the meantime, we are making every effort to tackle the problem.

Our best long-term hope lies in increasing the pool from which teachers are drawn, as the hon. Lady said, by encouraging pupils to stay at school and then carry on their studies at universities and colleges. The hon. Lady, rightly and understandably, attempted to draw me into detailed discussion of the universities' programme on the ground that I am the Minister responsible for education in Scotland so far as the teachers are concerned and that the universities play an essential part in providing the flow of teachers. That was ingenious; but I will not go into great detail on a matter which is not my primary responsibility in this debate, although as a member of the Government I have a responsibility.

The real problem is that at any given moment there are only certain resources available for doing everything we have to do throughout the whole country, and the problem of deciding the relative priorities for the allocation of capital resources is an agonising one. There is no Minister in the Government more conscious of the problem than the Secretary of State for Scotland. Every day of my working life I am aware, because of the wide range of my responsibilities, of claims which could be made for increased expenditure over a wide range of projects and subjects. The simple answer is that we cannot do everything we want to at once. We are aware of the problem, and there have been substantial increases in the allocation of capital resources, even though there are some who say they are not enough.

Miss Herbison

I will not touch further on the matter of university building, but will merely say that I think that the Government are wrong in their allocation of priorities. I expected an answer on a certain point, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have left it. He says that we want to encourage more pupils to stay on at school. What does he propose to do about the recommendation made more than five years ago?

Mr. Maclay

If the hon. Lady is referring to bursaries, I am just coming to that subject.

We have substantially increased the allowances payable to students, and that should help. It is, again, a question of whether we can do all of this kind of thing simultaneously and effectively. It is difficult to know at what level school bursaries could be effective as a counter to the attraction of early entry into industry in one form or another. I recognise that this is an important point, and we are examining it again. At the moment, I am not too hopeful. I certainly cannot say anything positive this afternoon about the extent to which this kind of bursary might be increased.

We expect that education will receive its due share of the increased output of the universities and central institutions. The salary increases which I prescribed last July were especially designed to encourage these able young people to become teachers, and we should know before long how far this inducement has proved successful. We could not get immediate results and cannot tell yet how far it has worked, but we are continuing to do everything we can to bring to the notice of students the attractions and opportunities offered by a career in teaching.

For more immediate results there is the special recruitment scheme. This is designed to assist as many people as we can attract from other walks of life to train as teachers. It has been going well, bringing in 600 to 700 good candidates a year. We shall try to improve the publicity for this scheme. It is a scheme with which the hon. Lady had a great deal to do in its early days.

The return of married women was also touched upon by the hon. Lady. Perhaps the most promising source from which we can hope to get more teachers quickly is married women who have trained as teachers. Many already remain in service for a year or two after marriage and others return to teaching when their families are off their hands. It is a remarkable thing that if all those women teachers who marry gave a year's extra service at some stage after marriage we should gain the equivalent of about 1,200 teachers. It would be an immense advantage and it is the biggest visible short-term gain that we have.

A great deal is already being done to encourage married women to remain in or to return to service. Directors of education and headmasters were very successful last year in persuading them to come back. The number of married women in service rose by 315 to 8,105, or 144 more than the Committee on the Supply of Teachers expected. We are expecting before long to have the results of the inquiry which Professor Kelsall has been making into the reasons why married women decide whether or not to return to teaching. I await the report with interest. It should make fascinating reading. In the light of Professor Kelsall's conclusions we shall discuss with the education authorities and the teachers what further measures are desirable.

The hon. Lady also mentioned another source which we must not overlook. It is the married women who were in other professions before marriage. Some at least may be later induced to take up teaching. They would be assisted financially during their training through the Special Recruitment Scheme. We are exploring this source. Intensive work is already being done during this period of great difficulty.

Miss Herbison

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any further thought has been given to making the year at training college much more attractive financially?

Mr. Maclay

I should not like to give a quick answer to that question. We are examining what happens during that period at training college. I noted with particular interest the hon. Lady's remarks about the two terms for honours graduates. I am interested that she should raise this matter again. We shall consider carefully what she has said.

I should like to say a few words about uncertificated teachers. There are now about 2,200 of them in the education authority schools, which is about 5 per cent. of the teaching force. I would emphasise that about 1,500 are graduates or have other good qualifications including teaching experience elsewhere, but 700 have qualifications seriously below standard. Our inspectors report that many uncertificated teachers are doing good or very good work, and this applies to quite a number even of those with seriously substandard qualifications. Nevertheless, they would not be em- ployed if certificated teachers were available. The obvious dilemma which faces an education authority is whether to employ uncertificated teachers or to have oversize classes or part-time education.

I shall now leave the major problems of building and teaching and come to the constructive side of what is happening, but, first I should like to answer the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who asked to what maximum class size we would work. The maximum prescribed for a primary class is 45 and for the first three years of secondary school it is 40. In the last three years of a secondary school the maximum is 30. There are minor variations in small schools with one or two teachers. That is why I was not risking answering the question out of my head when the right hon. Gentleman asked me.

The problems which I have been describing are so serious and are so much in our minds that it is easy sometimes to overlook the very real educational progress that is being made. The whole job to be done by our schools, never an easy one, has been made still more difficult by the rapid pace of change in a modern world which calls for constant reappraisal of aims and methods. I should now like to tell the Committee something of what is being done to adapt the work of the schools to meet the needs of today, and, indeed, of tomorrow, and to ensure that all pupils, so far as is humanly possible, receive the education best suited to their capacities and needs.

I shall not say very much about primary schools, because I have too much ground to cover and not because they are not extremely important, as obviously they are. We are engaged with representatives of the schools and the colleges of education in the preparation of a revised version of my Department's handbook on primary education, which I believe was very valuable in the past and a new version of which will take full account of modern trends.

The hon. Lady referred to the procedure for the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary education. This concerns a great many people. The Advisory Council's Report to which she referred was published last December. It reached the conclusion that the working of the transfer schemes has hitherto been satisfactory as a whale, but it drew attention to the need for a proper understanding by the public and by parents of the need for some method of assessment of children at the end of their primary schooling and of the way in which this is done.

There is certainly room for experiments in methods. In recent years certain authorities have modified their procedures substantially. I am also looking for a flexible approach to the initial allocation of pupils to secondary courses. It seems preferable that transfer boards should not attempt to go beyond a broad allocation of pupils between certificate courses and other courses, leaving the headmaster to arrange at a later stage for more specific allocation once there has been time to assess the pupil's aptitudes for secondary education. I have asked education authorities to review their existing transfer schemes in the light of the Advisory Council's recommendations and to give special attention to devising means by which parents can be given a better understanding of what is involved.

The pattern of secondary courses is itself now much more diversified than it used to be. A much wider range is now available, and there is also a wider scope for diversity in the way in which secondary education is organised. The comprehensive school has advantages in a number of respects, and we have always recognised this in Scotland. Although it may not be appropriate in all the circumstances, we are ready to approve proposals from authorities which consider that the comprehensive pattern of organisation best meets the circumstances of their area.

The hon. Lady said that I should be pressing all local authorities in this direction. I am not sure that she is right. It is a matter of opinion, but I do not fully accept her argument that we should press everybody to follow this model.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that in a society which I assume he claims to be democratic the comprehensive system of education is the one best fitted to promote the idea of democracy?

Mr. Maclay

This brings us back to the age-old discussion in the House of Commons, and particularly in the Scottish Committee, where, when I tell a local authority to do something, I am described as a dictator and when I do not tell it I am told that I am wrong. Hon. Members must make up their minds whether they want me to be an absolute or a partial dictator. I have my own views, but I will not develop them now.

There has been a spectacular increase in the number of candidates in this year's examination for the Scottish Certificate of Education—over 43,500 compared with 18,500 last year. This, of course, reflects the introduction of the ordinary grade of the Scottish Certificate of Education. This is designed for pupils in their fourth year and it replaces the old lower grade which was designed for pupils in their fifth year. More than 20,000 of the candidates for the ordinary grade were in their fourth year. This large number shows that in introducing the new grade we have met a real need. Success in this grade is the key to admission to many skilled occupations and courses of professional training. With its introduction, many more pupils now have an incentive to stay on longer and round off their courses in an effective way. There has also been a very satisfactory increase in the number of candidates presented on the higher grade, from 16,100 in 1961 to about 18,500 this year.

There is another innovation which I should mention. The former leaving certificate could be taken only at school, but older students may now take the certificate in further education centres. Even in the first year, we had about 1,200 candidates in 70 different centres, a quarter of them for the higher grade. I am sure that the Committee will agree that it is excellent that people should have this "second chance", and I expect the numbers to advance rapidly.

Another far-reaching development is our decision to introduce in the school session 1964–65 an advanced grade in the examination. We have no wish to see in our Scottish schools over-specialisation of the kind that has been the subject of a good deal of criticism south of the Border. On the other hand, it is important, not least for the transition from school to university, that work in our sixth year should have a certain degree of concentration and depth, and above all that the pupils should be encouraged in habits of private study and independent thinking. I fear that if has been one of the faults so far in our Scottish system that, in this last year, pupils are not sufficiently learning, thinking and studying for themselves. We are very conscious of this and are doing what we can to bring about an improvement. I believe that the advanced grade will do much in this direction.

The preparatory work on syllabuses is being undertaken by a series of informal committees on which my Department has brought together representatives of the teachers, of the colleges of education and of the universities. It is a very satisfactory development that we have got these people together on this kind of subject.

Hon. Members will recall that the Advisory Council on Education in the same Report which recommended the introduction of the advanced grade recommended also the appointment of an examinations board representative of the education interests concerned to take over from my Department the conduct of the entire examination for the Scottish Certificate of Education. This recommendation we have accepted. I gather that education opinion in Scotland approves of this. While the arrangements will necessarily take some time to complete, I intend to make the change as soon as practicable.

Hon. Members have always shown a very proper concern for the interests of those of our secondary pupils—about two-thirds of the total—who are not following courses leading to the certificate, but who will provide the majority of our future citizens. In a comprehensive review published in 1955, my Department offered practical guidance on the ways in which pupils in these junior secondary courses might be given the best preparation for grown-up life. Since that time, changes in the organisation of secondary courses have produced a more diversified pattern than the traditional division into senior secondary and junior secondary. Nevertheless, the problem of devising a really suitable education for pupils whose bent is practical rather than academic still remains, and in the Report the opportunity has been taken to review the progress made in this important field since 1955.

I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I dwell on this for some time, because this survey is one of the most interesting and important sections of the Report. It shows that positive and imaginative efforts have been made by a good many schools to provide an education suited to the needs of their pupils, and that there has been a lot of admirable and welcome experiment. There have been new and stimulating approaches to the ordinary subjects, for example, where science has been linked with local industry in Stirlingshire, and science and mathematics to bulb cultivation and the reseeding of common grazings, of which we heard a good deal this morning, in the Outer Isles.

There have been efforts to effect a link between work and recreation through hobbies periods, as they are called, and to encourage interest in the arts through music, art and dramatic clubs. Pupils have gained experience in responsibility by taking part in the running of their own school functions, concerts, parties and the like, and have learned something of social responsibility through such activities as helping old-age pensioners or supporting enterprises like the World Refugee Year.

Developments of this kind are by no means confined to the larger schools. Some quite small schools in the Northern counties have been conspicuously successful in this kind of activity. What is remarkable also and highly creditable is that many of the schools which are having serious staffing difficulties have, nevertheless, found it possible to raise standards and develop new methods and activities over the whole range of which I have been speaking. After tribute has been paid to these admirable developments, it may seem ungracious to say that there are still not nearly enough of them. It is important that far more schools should follow the excellent examples which are being set.

Another most important matter which has been emphasised fairly often is the need to develop much more effective links than now exist between junior secondary courses and courses of further education—the hon. Lady referred to this—and I hope soon to receive the report of the representative working party which has been going very fully into the problem.

Throughout the whole educational scene, we find a remarkable number of committees, working parties, advisory bodies, and so on. I have often asked myself whether there are far too many of them or not enough, and whether we should be using this method of approach. On consideration, I think that we are about right. So many of the matters we have to deal with must not be imposed from the centre but must be the result of working out with a lot of interested people what is felt to be right. Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder whether we have rather too many of these bodies.

Sir M. Galpern

The Secretary of State needs them all.

Miss Herbison

Why not take their advice sometimes?

Mr. Maclay

I hear the hon. Lady say that it would be a good thing to follow cheir advice. In her speech, she advised me at one point to follow their advice, but at another, when she was dealing with the question of the two or three-term course, she advised me to go against the advice of one of my committees. There is no hard and fast rule. I think that we want to be stimulated by the advice of these committees and pay a lot of attention to it, doing what we think right in the long run.

I come now to senior secondary education. The curriculum has been extensively overhauled, especially in those subjects which have been most profoundly affected by the advances in knowledge which are going on in our own time. For example, in the increasingly important subject of physics new syllabuses have been issued as alternatives to the traditional syllabuses and these new syllabuses are designed to bring physics teaching into line with modern concepts of the subject. This new approach makes very heavy demands on our teachers, and special courses in the teaching of the new syllabuses are being provided. The same applies to chemistry. Revised syllabuses are expected to come out shortly. We are working closely with the Nuffield Foundation in its study of the teaching of science in British schools. My Department's specialist in physics has been seconded to direct this aspect of the Nuffield Foundation's study.

In mathematics, the syllabuses need revision and, as hon. Members know, we are faced with a growing shortage of teachers here which is more serious than in any other subject. The Committee on the Supply of Teachers estimates that by 1975 we shall have less than half the honours graduate teachers of mathematics that we need. The universities are as worried as anybody, and we are getting together with their mathematics professors, with teachers and with other people concerned to see what changes are necessary in the schools and in university and other courses to help to meet the situation. There is not a simple solution.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

There is a solution.

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Gentleman must know that there is not a simple solution. It must be worked out very carefully. If he thinks that there is, I shall wait with interest to hear what he has to say later.

I should have liked to touch on many other aspects of the work of the schools —the need to review methods of teaching modern languages, progress in education research, our interest in the experimental work with what is called programmed instruction, the necessary basis for the "teaching machine", and the use of visual aids in the schools. But there is not time for me to go over the whole range of the work which we are trying to do.

Mr. Dempsey

I am interested in the point which the right hon. Gentleman has made about the comprehensive nature of the instructions which he is approving. How does he propose to implement these suggestions in the school at Coatbridge, where the rector says that he has not enough accommodation to fulfil the Scottish Education Department's present curriculum, quite apart from any extended curriculum?

Mr. Maclay

The hon. Member is using a useful method of getting in an important constituency point, which I agree is a very serious one, and I say that absolutely sincerely, but he did hear what I said about what is happening about building. Both the hon. Member and the hon. Lady know some of the problems which we are up against in school building in Lanarkshire, and I do not propose to go into them in detail this afternoon.

This catalogue which I have been giving of work going on and of consultation with various bodies will have shown hon. Members that we are in very close consultation on many matters with the teachers. This links up with what I said in a debate in May of last year, when I expressed my readiness to join with the profession and the education authorities in an examination of outstanding matters of concern to the teachers.

As I think the Committee knows, we discussed them with representatives of the Educational Institute, and, after these discussions, I set up several bodies, the first of which has already presented its report. This was the Working Party appointed last November to review the arrangements in my own Department and teachers' associations for consultation on educational matters.

The Report endorsed the existing arrangements as generally satisfactory. It recommended that they should be supplemented by the appointment of a consultative committee which should be representative of the Department and of the main teachers' associations which are at present regularly consulted on matters affecting the curriculum, school organisation and the like.

The Report has been welcomed, and I am proposing to set up that consultative committee at an early date. I am sure that it will be of considerable help both to us and to the teachers. Three other working parties are at present considering respectively the questions of relations between teachers and education authorities, of the eligibility of teachers for co-option to education authorities, and of pensions for widows and dependents of teachers. I understand that all these committees are making good progress, and that their reports will be published soon.

The main inquiry was entrusted to a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Wheatley, which is reviewing the present arrangements for the award and withdrawal of certificates of competency to teach. It, too, is making progress. I am not certain when Lord Wheatley's Committee will be able to report, for it has a very heavy and difficult task; but I am sure that hon. Members will join with me in hoping that these inquiries, which together amount to a very comprehensive review of the status and conditions of service of teachers, will produce a useful result and help to create a better atmosphere than that in which we were living for a certain period of time.

If the best is to be made of the work of the schools, there must be proper facilities for higher education. As the hon. Lady pointed out towards the end of her speech, there is no need to over-emphasise it, because we all know the immense importance to Scotland of the best possible training at all levels of technical, managerial and commercial skills. I am glad to say that the technical and commercial college building programme started in 1956 is now showing substantial results. Works to the value of almost £23 million have so far been approved, and yet more are being planned. Works to the value of just on £13 million are now under construction, and completions should increase steadily from now on.

In the autumn of this year, the large and important College of Commerce and Distributive Trades in Glasgow will come into use. The work it will do has already aroused interest right outside this country, and we have had inquiries about it from countries in Europe. The new centre at Arbroath will be open in September, and I hope that the new technical college at Falkirk will be ready early in the coming session. In 1963 and 1964, we should see the completion of a dozen other major centres at present under construction, including, for example, the 15-storey College of Building and Printing which has now become a rather striking feature of the skyline of Central Glasgow.

Although the demand for places for day-release students has been rising steadily—the Committee should know that the number of students in 1961 was more than a third greater than in 1956, but I am by no means satisfied with these figures—there has so far been no general difficulty in finding accommodation. Some authorities have acquired or adapted existing premises to meet urgent needs. For example, the administrative block of the North British Locomotive Company, in Springburn, has been acquired by Glasgow, and I am always prepared to consider exceptional proposals on these lines to meet the needs of industry.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the new technical college being built at Falkirk by the Stirlingshire education authority, and has said that it is likely that it would be ready early next session. I believe that the Stirlingshire County Council Education Committee has approached the Secretary of State asking him to permit the contractors to work overtime in order to get the college finished before the beginning of next session. I understand from Press reports that the right hon. Gentleman has refused to agree to that overtime being worked. How can he then expect the college to be ready at the beginning of next session?

Mr. Maclay

I am always glad to discover what I have done and what I have not done, and I will certainly examine what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The building programme which I have been describing as already approved or under consideration should be enough to meet the foreseeable demands at the apprentice and technician level, but further projects will certainly be considered if the need arises.

So far as staff is concerned, the number of whole-time teachers in further education has increased by 45 per cent. in the period from 1956 to 1961. This is a very substantial advance, and further increases can be expected, but we are concerned with quality as well as numbers, and we have to make certain that teachers recruited from industry and commerce not only are well qualified but also that they have adequate opportunities for professional training. A scheme has been devised whereby men and women who are interested in transferring from industry or commerce to teaching in further education can make the transition smoothly and with the minimum of financial inconvenience.

The first of the new pre-service and in-service courses of training for further education teachers is now taking place at Jordanhill College of Education. It is being attended by 54 students, of whom 50 are teachers in service who have been released from their employing authorities. Their special interests range widely, including engineering, building, catering, hairdressing and printing. In addition to this course, we are proposing to introduce a central register of intending teachers about which I shall be making a fuller announcement later this month.

Clearly, these measures for the expansion and improvement of technical education will require the full support of industry. It was the uncertainty of this factor which caused me a year ago to ask the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council for advice on the progressive development of day release. The Committee which it set up under Mr. Charles Oakley recently presented its first report, in which it made a number of important recommendations for development within the existing voluntary framework.

I have already commended these suggestions to education authorities, but the one which has attracted most attention is that for a scheme of compulsory registration of young people training for skilled occupations. This would require legislation, and I am at present awaiting the views of many different interests involved. I should emphasise that what has been proposed is not a scheme for compulsory day release. The Oakley Committee is going on to consider whether this would be practicable for selective categories. The present proposal is for registration of young people in selected categories for selective employment.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

The Minister is running the question of the training colleges into that of day release before I have been able to interrupt him at the proper time. I should like to ask a question about the period at the training college, because a great deal of stress is being placed by the teachers on the necessity for qualifications from the training college. I understand that considerable financial difficulty, or, at any rate, a financial barrier, prevents a number of people from considering that. Is he prepared to consider payment for people such as he has been describing when they take courses at training colleges? Could that not be regarded the same as already being in the job, because the gap when they have to go without money might be sufficient to deter them from taking the necessary training?

Mr. Maclay

I agree that that is a matter that needs to be looked at carefully. I should not like to give a snap answer. I will look at it, however, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to touch on it in his winding-up speech.

The present proposal of the Oakley Committee is for registration of young people in selected categories of skilled employment such as apprentices. Whether or not this proposal goes forward, I am sure that the provision of the new courses announced last year and the opening of the new colleges will result in a steady development in technical education in the next few years. There can be no possible doubt about this. It is something that we badly need.

Another important new development is the increasing part that the education service is playing in industrial training as distinct from technical education. The Annual Report refers to the development of first-year full-time apprenticeship courses in local technical colleges. When the Report was published, courses were being offered in Edinburgh only, but they are now being offered in both Glasgow and Paisley in the coming session and developments elsewhere are coming along.

The Annual Report also refers to an experimental scheme whereby a group of engineering apprentices during the first three years of their apprenticeship would receive industrial training together with technical education in a full-time course held in a technical college. This scheme, which has had the general approval of the employers' associations and the trade unions, has now been worked out in detail by the Technical Education Consultative Council. I understand that at a meeting in Glasgow yesterday there was a good response from the firms represented and I have every hope that a good proportion of the 40 places available will be taken up and that the course will start in the autumn. This is an interesting new development.

I apologise for giving such a long list, but a great deal is going on and I am anxious to put on record just how much is happening in education. One side on which I must touch and with which hon. Members would wish me to deal is what is happening in the Youth Service. With the valuable help and backing of Lord Kilbrandon's Youth Council—I am extremely grateful to Lord Kilbrandon and to the members of the Council for the great attention they have given to this work, to which I pay tribute—we are doing what we can from the centre to stimulate and co-ordinate the development of the youth service.

The "pump-priming" scheme of capital grants to voluntary bodies for local purposes is working well. The scheme is encouraging local bodies to launch out on ventures and education authorities to assist them. There are signs that this essential co-operation at local level will continue.

In places like Falkirk, Stirling, Glasgow, Kilbirnie, Dundee and Dunoon, new or renovated facilities for young people are appearing where they were sadly lacking before. A good example of how it is working is the new and very well equipped joint Y.W.C.A.-Y.M.C.A. centre which is being built in the new town of Glenrothes. It will cost £20,000, of which £6,000 is contributed by my Department, £6,000 by Fife education authority and the balance by voluntary effort. This is a very good way of getting this kind of work going in which everybody concerned takes part.

More important even than the premises, however, are the leaders, and the Moray House College of Education training course for full-time youth leaders is about to produce its second crop of trained men and women. The whole lot of them have already been offered employment and almost all, I am glad to say, are staying in Scotland.

There is one other small development which I must mention, because it is a useful one. My Department is producing a new quarterly publication called "Scottish Youth News". It is getting quite a big circulation already. Its purpose is to keep leaders and others informed of all that is going on and of current trends and ideas. This can be valuable.

Mr. Rankin

Will the right hon. Gentleman supply it to us?

Mr. Maclay

I will supply it to the hon. Member for a consideration. I have covered a good deal of ground in this speech, as did the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North. In a subject as interesting and important, at this criticial moment we were both entitled to cover the points which we considered important. I have done so deliberately, because in spite of our obvious difficulties—and they are serious —it should be realised how much vitality there is in Scottish education and how well it is adapting itself to the changing needs of our time.

I repeat that the stresses which Scottish education is experiencing are extremely uncomfortable. They must, however, be seen in their proper context. The context is that of a service which is expanding in size and range and which is doing its utmost to provide the varied and complex pattern of education which our country must have if it is to meet the rapidly growing demands of what must be called a new age.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

I wish to pay tribute to my friend and predecessor, the late John Taylor. We in West Lothian know that he died of overwork in the service of his constituents, in the service of his party, and in the service of his country. The Committee might also wish to know that on Saturday I was asked by George Mathers, Who was Member for West Lothian between 1935 and 1951, if I would pass on his good will to those on both sides of the House of Commons who knew him.

As a maiden speaker, I am entitled to certain courtesies from the other side of the Committee. Therefore, I think that I ought not to indulge in my profound and controversial criticisms of the Government's educational thinking but, will confine myself to certain problems of the secondary school, particularly related to the better use of teaching power.

The first of these problems concerns headmasters. Is it really imperative that headmasters, who are highly skilled and successful teaching practitioners, should be tied up with milk returns and with lengthy telephone calls to education offices, often about nothing much in particular, and should sometimes be concerned with being taxi-man to wee Jeanie who decides that she is feeling ill and wants to go home?

There is a case for having a special administrative assistant who is not just a shorthand-typist, possibly recently just out of school, who is of the calibre to take a whole range of minor decisions. A new profession should be set up, which could be called the School Administrative Service, with promotion and rates of pay comparable to branches of the Civil Service.

I am convinced that headmasters, in their own being and in their own souls, would be happier people if they could return to the classroom for, say, half a day each schoolday, if they could make use of their teaching and their academic expertise, and get to know some of their pupils better. Is it not strange that a man who has been a successful teacher of algebra or French for a quarter of a century should suddenly find himself transferred to a totally different occupation because the business of petty administration, being headmaster of a school, is totally different from the profession of a teacher? Let us relieve these skilled men of their chores and set up a school administrative service to help them.

Hon. Members may say that this really would not do and that headmasters must be available to interview parents. This is where I part company from the bulk of present educational thinking. I do not believe that headmasters are the people to interview the majority of parents. This should be done by the class teacher, the form teacher, or what some of us call the "register" teacher.

I can tell the Committee that—never mind their politics—the majority of the electors of West Lothian, in their capacity as parents, are profoundly dissatisfied with headmasters' interviews. They frequently say—whatever their politics "The rector has never heard of my Peter. He was just a name to him before I went to the interview." To be fair, a rector cannot be expected to know every child, except by sight or by name, among 850 different pupils. Therefore, the present suggestion is that we allocate from the Estimates which we are now discussing money to provide—perhaps at a fee of £3 a time—for individual teachers to come to a clinic, once a month, on an advertised date, between the hours of say six o'clock and nine o'clock in the evening.

First, I wish to deploy the advantages of such a proposal and then to focus the attention of hon. Members on the snags. The first advantage is represented by the contact which would be established. Often parents have volunteered to me, in my capacity as a canvassing politician, "My George cannot get along with Mr. X. Mr. X is, therefore, Q.E.D. a bad teacher". But in my capacity as a teacher, Mr. X may be known to me as a competent and conscientious colleague. It seems to me that there is nothing between the parent and the teacher which could not be put right in a five-minute interview if they were able to get to know each other and if a bid were made by the teacher for parental support.

This whole concept of a confidential contact assumes added importance when many teachers have to travel, for instance, from Edinburgh to Bathgate or from Kilmalcolm to Glasgow. In the days of the "village dominie", who was a "kenspeckle figure" I should not have been urging the Government to pay for teachers to provide interviews. But in this year, which some people call "42 after Ford" one must accept the fact that many teachers have precious little connection with the community in which they operate. I think that the timing of the clinic from, six o'clock until nine is crucial to my argument. It is partly that between nine o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the afternoon a teacher is too busy to see parents individually. It is partly because the fathers are out at work, but much more important is the point that pupils do not want their parents to be seen in the school during school hours.

This is related to the whole "folk lore" of children. Somehow they think that by coming to school in school hours their parents would be carrying favour with the teachers. They use reasons which would seem strange and curious to the adult world, but to children there are pressing reasons why parents should not come to the school during school hours. These feelings must be respected. I know many parents who would like to visit the school but when asked by me, "Why did you not put this right with the rector?" they reply, "Jeanette did not want me to come." We may think that this is trivial, but it is not trivial in the actual circumstances. It would be totally different if we paid fees for assistant teachers to conduct interviews out of school hours.

I think that young teachers would gain from such clinic interviews. The first thing that they would gain would be that elusive status which they want so much but which cannot be bestowed by we politicians or legislators. Status would come to those who met parents and who could explain to them all the good things that were being done for their youngsters. Far too often the only contact between a travelling teacher and a parent occurs at a time when things go wrong; at a time of minor crisis; at a time when there is likely to be antagonism. I would wish for additional contacts, and I think that this might be achieved by out-of-school-hours clinics.

Secondly—I would rather that hon. Members did not smile at this; it is important to a young man fresh from training college—if they had these interviews, young teachers would get some of the appreciation that they richly deserve, or often richly deserve. Frequently the criticism is made that teachers in their forties are cynical, frustrated and—worst of all—sarcastic. They would not be cynical or frustrated or sarcastic, I believe, if in their early twenties or early thirties they had had a word of appreciation. I am not asking for flattery for my colleagues. I am making the observation that many parents, sometimes relatively inarticulate people, would like to say, "Thank you" to the teachers for what they have done. But they have not the opportunity to do so. The House may be assured that a small proportion of unsolicited encouragement would have a disproportionate effect on the output and the quality of the output of teachers.

I think that from these individual interviews young teachers would get an understanding of their pupils that would serve them well in their relations with youngsters, and would certainly serve them in good stead when they become headmasters. Hon. Members may take it from me that there is a certain quite important dividend in the thought in the minds of the youngsters, "Well, teacher kens my dad." That goes a long way and can be very helpful.

There are objections to teachers' clinics. The first is the parent-teacher association. Many schools do not have parent-teacher associations. I do not believe, when the first contact is made in an atmosphere of tea and scones, that a parent gets on the same wavelength as the teacher in discussing a number of views. I do not think that at these meetings the serious business that both parties would like to discuss can very well be discussed, particularly in the environment of a mass of other people.

The second objection to teachers' clinics is of an altogether different and more weighty nature. It is that the teachers will make mistakes and that they do not have enough experience. Certainly they will make blunders. But I would wager that the young teacher will give more satisfaction to parents than would a headmaster to whom a pupil is no more than a name on a record card. The idea of a fire-eating parent who will bully young teachers is a myth, because 98 per cent. of the parents who take the trouble to come would be helpful to a young and inexperienced teacher. Those same parents may be very annoyed with a rector who gave second-hand answers.

Equally, in anticipation of being confronted by parents, the quality of a teacher's work may well improve. I find it quaint that I am supposedly fit to represent 59,000 electors in this House of Commons. Yet, two months ago, under the system, I should not have been considered fit to interview a couple of parents at my registered class. What I claim for myself in the way of good sense I would certainly claim, neither more nor less, for every teacher in his twenties. Given their head they can take responsibility and failure and will be the better and more proved educators for it. I would ask the Secretary of State to give them their head and give them responsibility, when he will get far more of them.

There are problems connected with the wastage of time by skilled teachers. One thinks of the hours spent toiling away with difficult bandas and obstinate cyclostyle machines preparing papers or notes for classes. One thinks of the time spent on mechanical corrections which could be done by anyone over the age of twenty-one. I am not complaining about the seven or eight hours which it would take any conscientious person to correct the compositions of a third-year class of forty. That is fair enough, and it needs the mature judgment of a teacher. But I am complaining about work which could be done very easily by other people.

One also thinks of interruptions of class work. This may seem trivial to the House of Commons, but I am certain that it depreciates the efficiency of a teacher by at least 15 per cent., particularly such things, for example, as the objectionable practice of sending junior secondary pupils round the mixed school with messages. The deduction which they draw is, "Teacher can easily spare us from the class. Our education is not very important to him nor to the authorities." In these circumstances, I solemnly suggest to hon. Members that every department in every secondary school should have a secretary. Hon. Members may think this is going too far and is ridiculous, but every puppy business executive in the City of London seems to have a secretary. I do not take the view that teachers should not have a priority over puppy business executives. If hon. Members boggle at that, they would probably approve of appointing laboratory assistants to every science department. This is a priority.

I am most concerned with the problem of the "lost" pupils, by which I mean those who have embarked on five-year courses but suddenly leave at 15 or 16 for no very articulate reason. It is partly a matter of inadequate fourth-year grants. When the Secretary of State asks where he should inject money into the system, I suggest it would be most worthwhile to inject it into fourth-year grants, particularly for girls. It may not always be a question of the actual purchasing power of the family. What teenagers tell me—many have said this—is, "We have two or three brothers or sisters and we feel it would be an embarrassment to our parents to go on living on them any longer." So, if the right hon. Gentleman has money to inject into the system, here is the place to do it.

It is not wholly a financial question. There is the need for patience and sympathy during the time of puberty and biological change. I know boys and girls who were good scholars at 13 and again at 17 but at 15 drove me as a teacher to despair. Those are the ones who either by luck or courage have stayed on. What about all those of 15 and 16 who took a snap, hasty decision to leave school? I believe they and the country are the worse for it.

Unfortunately, these biological differences coincide with a change in academic life. The fourth year in mathematics is the time they start calculus and in history they have to start to answer questions which require judgment no longer will the simple regurgitated answer of fact do. At this difficult point marginal pupils need help. It seems significant that in a town of 12,000, in West Lothian only two pupils are attempting higher mathematics and both are being privately coached by the ex-rector of the school, who is in his mid-seventies. What he says is meaningful: "I have taught them a little mathematics, but I have helped them to find out for themselves how to work." When the Secretary of State says that he wishes that Scots pupils would do more thinking for themselves, I suggest to him that they need to be helped to think for themselves.

It is in the light of these considerations that I make the suggestion that generous funds should be given to any education authority which is prepared to hire retired teachers to give special coaching to marginal pupils at the request of their headmaster. There would be advantages in this. It could be done either in the school or in private homes by retired colleagues. It would augment their meagre pension. I hope that any money they were to receive if this scheme were adopted would not be deducted from their rightful pension. It would also give an opportunity for those who have neither the health nor qualifications to go on teaching at 67 or 68 a class of thirty-seven or forty pupils and it would give them a feeling that they were wanted.

There is nothing more ridiculous in our society in the nineteen-sixties than the idea that a man who is working full speed ahead at 64 must suddenly cease at the magic date of his 65th birthday. Having gone full steam ahead on Friday afternoon, he then must do no more work on Monday morning because he has reached the magic age of 65. Surely there is an argument for allowing people to cease work gradually?

In the light of this, I suggest that five groups of two or three pupils might go to retired teachers once a week each, or that teachers of 70 to 75, if they have the inclination, might have two or three groups of pupils twice a week. Some teachers might say, "Let us retire in peace". I would not inflict extra work on them, but I know many who would welcome such a scheme, not chiefly on financial grounds, but chiefly on humane grounds because they would feel that the world still needs them. I know of youngsters who would reap the benefit from such an idea. I know that some will say, "Can we afford the schemes you have produced this afternoon?" I prefer to put it the other way and to say, "Can we afford not to do these things?".

5.36 p.m.

Mr. John Brewis (Galloway)

It gives me great pleasure to congratulate most sincerely the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on his maiden speech. He spoke with great authority on a subject on which he possesses a considerable amount of knowledge, and we all listened to him with fascination. I wish to say how much we appreciated as Members of the House of Commons his tribute to Mr. John Taylor, who was a very respected Member and was known to a great many of us.

What the hon. Member said, particularly about teacher clinics, I thought extremely interesting, but one of the difficulties we find in Scottish education is getting the parents to come forward and co-operate with the teachers. In America, seemingly, this is much easier. They have a great deal of success with their parent-teacher associations, but unfortunately this seems to have hung fire a little in Scotland. I feel that it would be difficult to lay down any definite rule because schools in Scotland vary so much. I could well understand that the head teacher of a small school would wish to interview all the parents himself and not leave it to his class teachers.

We have today a very interesting Report from the Scottish Education Department, on which I congratulate the Department. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the Secretary of State for Scotland have spoken at considerable length on a number of interesting subjects. I can pick out only one or two matters in the time available to me as a back-bench member. As the age bulge passes through the secondary schools we must consider secondary education as very important, although primary education is the basis on which a child's education is started.

In the last four years we have built twenty-two new junior secondary schools and twenty-nine new comprehensive secondary schools. As my right hon. Friend said, that shows that we have no particular bias on this question and are prepared to leave the choice of school to the local authority concerned. We should all realise what a tremendous effect these new schools have on the morale not only of the pupils in the school but also the teachers who work in them, when they get new laboratories, workshops, halls, and practice rooms in brand-new schools.

Many of us feel that sometimes there are too many frills about the education system, but if we are to retain the high place which we occupy in the world, we cannot look back. If education had stayed at the level of a hundred years ago, there can be no doubt that the standard of living in this country would be very much lower today. The standard of living depends so much on the export of engineering goods and other goods in which invention is so important that we cannot possibly look back. We must look forward in education.

The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North referred to completions being down in the last year. She is entirely correct, but I would point out that the number of projects approved, projects started and projects under construction for school building is very much higher, particularly in connection with technical education.

The Report states—and I think that this is interesting—that there is a great acceptance of the fact that the junior secondary school provides a good education. We must thank the staff of the junior secondary school for what they are doing in making practical non-certificate work interesting for the pupils. The junior secondary school also gives boys whose bent is non-academic a chance to develop their character and to assume a certain measure of leadership which they would not find in a comprehensive school.

Whereas in the senior secondary school there should be a connection with the universities and other academic institutions, there is room for the junior secondary school to have a closer connection with adult life. There should be visits to factories in local towns in order that boys can see the sort of work which they may well be doing when they leave school. They can then appreciate that what they are learning in wookworking or metal working will have an application for them in their later life. Much the same can be said about the junior secondary schools in agricultural districts, where the boys can learn a great deal about farming. There is an interesting piece in the Department's Report showing that some of the bulb growing research in the Island of Lewis was done in the secondary school there, and I understand that a number of crofters have taken up the cultivation of bulbs, which may in time become quite a prosperous local industry.

I notice that about 35 per cent. of all secondary pupils attend the senior secondary or certificate course in Scotland. The Secretary of State has given more recent figures, but the figures for the Scottish leaving certificate last year were 18,562 presenting for the examination and 11,438 passes. Both of these figures are higher than the previous year. The figures which the Secretary of State gave are on a different basis. It seems that about 14,000 pupils have been leaving school without taking the Scottish leaving certificate at all. It may be that some of these would have done better had they gone into more practical non-certificate work at the junior secondary schools throughout the country.

Turning for a moment to the subjects which were taken last year in the Scotish leaving certificate, I was interested to see that there were 71 passes in Russian and that the figure had risen from 33 in the previous year. It is pleasant to see that there has been a considerable improvement. Obviously, providing teaching of Russian cannot be particularly easy. At the same time, I hazard a guess that those 71 pupils who have passed in Russian will find their studies much more relevant to the modern world than will the 362 who passed in ancient Greek or the 3,733 who passed in Latin. This, I am afraid, is rather a hobby horse of mine, because having studied ancient Greek when I was a boy, I can say that I remember absolutely nothing whatever of it, not even the letters of the alphabet. Although one cannot be dogmatic about this, it seems that one can get just the same academic exercise studying French and even more academic exercise from Russian, which sometimes declines its words at both ends and is even more complicated than Greek.

Mr. Rankin

While I appreciate much of what the hon. Member said, may I ask whether he realises that in Russia there are 24,000 teachers who are teaching English? Does this show him how far we are behind on the road which he would like us to traverse?

Mr. Brewis

I thank the hon. Member for that very interesting piece of information. I think that we are in agreement on what ought to be done. It has always seemed to me that there is a self-interest in the teaching of the classics; we produce more teachers to teach more children in the classics and they in turn produce more teachers of the classics. I was interested to see that out of a shortage of 3,810 teachers in Scotland, we are short of only nine teachers of the classics.

No one can make a speech on Scottish education without mentioning the short- age of teachers which is making the whole problem of the junior secondary schools and all secondary education very much more difficult for the staff. There has been some improvement, but it seems to me that ultimately it must depend on the proportion of educated manpower we can turn out from the universities. It seems that the proportion who go into teaching is fairly constant.

The bulge will hit the universities in about 1964. I feel that when that happens hon. Members will receive a great many letters from people whose children have not been able to find the place in the universities to which they are entitled. To a certain extent the Government are victims of their own propaganda, because by encouraging boys to stay at school longer and to take more and more courses they are producing material which then will be unable to go to the university and in turn will not be abe to help to meet the teacher shortage.

Mr. Dempsey

We are receiving those letters already. There are pupils leaving our secondary schools with the maximum number of higher leaving certificates who are still unable to gain admission, for example, to the University of Glasgow. Obviously the situation will be aggravated by 1964 when the bulge makes itself felt.

Mr. Brewis

I have no doubt that the hon. Member will be able to make that point. I have had no letters on the subject.

Mr. Dempsey

I have.

Mr. Brewis

On the whole, we are not particularly short of university teachers, but I do not think that we can have all the buildings up before the early 1970's without interfering with other necessary building work which is taking place in Scotland, such as that in the Hospital Plan. Buildings are very important in primary education where we are dealing with toddlers, but when we are dealing with university students we find that they do not need molly-coddling; they are grown-up young men. When it comes to teaching them it is the quality of teaching and the spirit of the place which counts. When in South America recently I was interested to see an entire new university which had been set up in Nissen huts, including the scientific side of the university, the lecture rooms and all the classrooms. I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether it is possible to get on with something like that and at any rate get the people into universities where they can have the training and not just wait for the Robbins Committee to produce its report. We seem to have had considerable success with the building of technical colleges. I hope that we shall be able to do something about the universities. The 1960 generation is almost as large as the 1946 generation, and as the years go on and the Government achieve more and more success in getting people to stay on at school we shall not be able to get on in Scotland without establishing a fifth university.

5.50 p.m.

Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

First, I want to join with the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) in congratulating on behalf of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on what was undoubtedly an outstanding maiden speech. We are fortunate in having now among our numbers an hon. Member with the youthful, inquiring and stimulating outlook which was so abundantly shown this afternoon by my hon. Friend. We certainly look forward to many such contributions in the future and, what is of more particular interest to this side of the Committee, we hope that his ideas will he accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland and implemented, as they should be.

The Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box this afternoon with his usual urbane smile, disarming every bit of opposition from this side of the Committee by saying that he agreed here and he agreed there and that he would not like to give snap answers to many problems, which were awkward to him at the time they were raised, which is another way of saying, "I do not know". Was the right hon. Gentleman entitled to stand at the Box as he did this afternoon when the Report on Education in Scotland in 1961 is not one which can offer any ground for satisfaction or congratulation? It is a miserable confession on the part of the Government of their failure to cope with the many and serious ailments afflicting Scottish education today.

The Report shows that there is nothing mysterious about the nature of the ailments, because the various specialists in the form of working parties—I am very glad to note that the Secretary of State is beginning to wonder whether he has too many specialists around him—have had no difficulty in diagnosing the malady and recommending appropriate treatment which would soon restore our listless education patient to a person of bounding energy, vitality and vigour who would become once more the admiration and envy of the whole world.

That is how sadly we have fallen. From being a country which was in the van of every educational and academic development we now occupy a very sorry place well behind many other runners in the education stakes, because the Government, weeping and wailing in their financial distress, are unable to afford the 2s. for the prescription charge. That is the whole root of the trouble. We could solve 99.9 per cent. of our educational problems without any difficulty if the Government were prepared to find the money.

We were told by the Secretary of State that there must be priorities. I know of nothing which can be regarded as of higher priority than the welfare and future development of our young citizens so that they will become the people who will occupy our places in the years ahead. The Government say, "No. It must wait. There are more important fields, such as Surtax, where we must give some benefits and education must take its proper place."

Everyone has stressed and will continue to stress the fact that most of our troubles stem from the shortage of teachers. New schools are urgently required, despite the number that has been built. The old schools, which are in many cases a century old, most of them being built before the beginning of this century, need modernising. There is an inadequacy of equipment. There is the problem of oversize classes.

I want to spend some time on the outstanding problem, the shortage of teachers, from which most of our troubles stem. We have had Departmental committee after Departmental committee; we have had reports of working parties, but there still remains the outstanding fact that the Government are not planning to relieve the shortage which is estimated must take place by 1975. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has shown, despite the fact that the figures prove that the demand will rise in 1975 to 50,000, there will still be a shortage of 7,000 in 1975.

There is no planning. There is merely the statement, "We are doing our best by public advertisement and by trying to induce people to stay on longer at schools." But the Government then debar them from the only means of becoming teachers, by keeping them out of the universities. The Government say, "We know that there will be a shortage of 7.000 teachers in 1975 and as long as we know that is always something on the road to some sort of satisfaction."

The problem of getting the requisite number of teachers is a financial one. It still remains a question of salary. Despite what was done recently by way of increasing the salaries of teachers, there is still much to be done. People who have obtained a first or second-class honours degree, having done four years at, for instance, Glasgow University to get the honours degree and then undergone their training period at the college of education, start as teachers at the "magnificent" salary of £840. Can anyone suggest that for a person having that academic experience £840 is a reasonable starting salary in competition with what is being offered to policemen and workers in industry? It will rise by twelve annual increments to £1,600.

The problem might well be solved if there was a far higher entrance salary. At the age at which they commence teaching, many people, both males and females, are contemplating marriage and that is the very time that they require money to set up house. All they get is £840. After an ordinary graduate has done three years at a university and obtained a degree and spent one year at a college of education he starts at the "magnificent" salary of £680, as much as is being offered to a typist in London with only two or three years' experience. Non-graduate women, who have received a welcome increase, having gone through five or six years at a senior secondary school and three years in a training college start at the "magnificent" salary of £560 a year.

These are not pre-war salaries. These are the salaries being offered today. Yet we ask ourselves why an insufficient number of properly qualified people are attracted to teaching. It has been clearly shown that the number of pupils remaining at school and taking a four or five year course has risen in the last five years by more than 71 per cent.. but they are not being attracted to teaching.

They inquire about the starting salary and the conditions of employment, and unless we are prepared to take immediate steps—and I do not mean waiting for the findings of committees, although I know that certain proposals have been made to the National Joint Council—about starting salaries, in particular, we shall not succeed in getting sufficient recruits to the profession.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian suggested that we should use retired teachers by sending pupils to them in their own homes for additional tutorial exercises. That is a very good idea, but why not bring some of those retired teachers into the classroom, where they are needed? We know that hundreds of retired teachers are refusing to return to the profession because, by doing so, they would penalise themselves financially.

We on this side have raised this subject over and over again. We have a teacher shortage in our senior secondary schools—for mathematics, and so on—and we should say to the retired teachers, "If you come back, you will enjoy the same conditions as you would in any other form of work. You will have both your salary and your pension". But no, we resolutely refuse to do that, because it would create some problems.

There was no problem when we had to do it for the police during the war. We then brought back retired policemen and gave them both their salaries and their pensions to relieve the shortage. When we deal with the police, of course, it is entirely different. When we discovered that there was a shortage in the police forces we almost doubled the salaries, with the result that practically every police force in Scotland can report that it is up to establishment.

Marred women have been doing a grand job of work in education, and we cannot pay too high a tribute to their efforts to help us in our difficulties. I wonder whether, attached to each school or group or schools, we could establish a crêche where their children under five years could be looked after? We have failed lamentably in the provision of nursery schools. There are only 88 in the whole of Scotland, although on that topic the Report states: …there is no doubt that the children benefit greatly from this form of education. The Government are not prepared to spend another brass farthing there, otherwise we might have had an adequate number of nursery schools. In schools where three or four married women are employed, could not a room be set apart in which their young children could be left in charge of some girl training for nursing, or nursery school work? The mothers would then at least know that their children were being looked after.

When dealing with the Special Recruitment Scheme, the Secretary of State was careful not to mention that the numbers are dwindling. There were 50 less last year than in the previous year, so the scheme needs looking at again. The scheme serves a very useful purpose. It means that we get a number of people with wider experience, but there is no question of dilution; the recruits have to go through the usual channels to become qualified according to the school and the branch of education.

The Secretary of State did not deal with the shortages in the primary schools, but page 13 of the Report states: …in almost all counties the staffing situation is precarious. Apropos the shortage of primary schools, it states that a number of these schools have had to adopt a part-time system.

The position in the secondary department is even more serious. According to the Report, there are 1,338 over-size classes. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked what happened to those pupils who pass into the secondary school, but fail to pass out with a leaving certificate. I believe that 35 per cent go in, but that only 12 per cent. ultimately finish up with the senior secondary school certificate. Although at the stage of promotion from primary school to secondary school they have been assessed as being academically well endowed and possessing the possibility of acquiring the school certificate, it may be that the assessment was wrong, but a percentage of 12 is far too low.

I think that we are entitled to suggest that the low percentage is partly due to the over-size classes in the secondary schools, where a little more specialised individual teaching is required. An able child, who shaped well in the primary school, probably requires that extra tuition in the secondary school, and in those 1,338 over-size secondary school classes may lie part of the answer to that 12 per cent. who get the senior secondary school certificate.

The ratio of teachers to pupils works out very nicely in the Report, but we find that in some of the practical classes in the secondary schools the whole thing becomes absolutely impossible, and we must recognise the difficulties and frustrations of pupils, who are intelligent boys and girls, and realise that they are not being properly helped to master their subjects. In the secondary schools, in particular, serious efforts should be made by way of a substantial increase in salaries to attract more people from industry to those schools.

There is another aspect of our primary and secondary schools which I wish to interpolate here, because nothing has so far been said about it. In some junior secondary schools there is juvenile delinquency. We have discussed in Committee the building of borstals, remand homes and the rest, but we need also to look after the welfare of children in our primary and junior secondary schools.

The Under-Secretary should consider what has been done in Glasgow—it is no longer an experiment—where social welfare officers have been appointed to schools where the incidence of juvenile delinquency is unduly high. Those appointments have been very successful. The Under-Secretary will know that these able people, trained as teachers or holding a diploma in social science, have been able to do much good by dealing with incipient juvenile delinquency by getting to know parents, and trying to help them if they have serious difficulties.

We should also examine our methods of dealing with truancy. We are rather lenient there, and should look at the whole structure anew. It takes far too long at present before a parent is brought before the school management committee to be questioned about the child's prolonged absence from school. The next stage of bringing them to court for prosecution takes an interminable time. It brings the whole thing into disrepute and has no effect at all upon the parent. I think that the Secretary of State should look at that aspect of our educational administration.

On the question of the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary education, I regret very much that only two authorities out of 35 in Scotland have seen fit to abolish the formal promotion tests. I think that there is abundant evidence to show clearly that there is no need to subject a pupil at the age of 11-plus or 12 to a test which is one that can quite easily be swotted for. There should be a system whereby a formal examination does not take place but the pupil is promoted to an academic or non-academic course according to the opinion of the school teacher who has taught the pupil for several years plus the opinion of the headmaster of his school and of the receiving headmaster in consultation.

I disagree fundamentally with the Report on the question of the transfer from primary to secondary schools in that I think that it should be made obligatory on every Scottish education authority to abolish the formal promotion test and to substitute a system of tests in which only the class teacher, knowing the work of the pupil, and the headmaster decide on the course of education that the pupil should take and the pupil allocated on that basis.

The question of the transfer of pupils to the different types of school causes great concern, but the Secretary of State quite clearly indicated this afternoon that he was not all for the comprehensive school. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North pointed out, the Advisory Committee suggested that the only reasonable method of education was by having comprehensive schools. Looking at the statistics for Scotland, we find that the tradition in Scotland has always been in favour of the comprehensive school. We have in Scotland 149 schools providing four- or five-year courses, whereby one assumes that the pupil in the primary department continues his education right through the school. I think that the finest method of education is continuous progress from the primary school right through to the secondary department where provision can be made for a particular type of pupil. A remarkable thing brought out in the Report is that of secondary schools not providing a four-year or five-year course, 376 have a primary department.

My own experience as Chairman of the Glasgow Education Committee for some time is that the comprehensive school, of which we have 17 in Glasgow, is the finest basis of secondary education. The members of the committee on the question of the transfer from primary education to secondary education admitted that there was a great danger in this constant chopping and changing from one school to another, with all the upset to pupils, and the transfer from one particular course to another.

Some people have fears as to whether the comprehensive school was worth while. Many of the conjectural difficulties which loom large in the imagination of the critics have already been shown to be quite unreal in the light of experience. Fears have been expressed about the handicapping of pupils educationally. One of our comprehensive schools has the largest classical department in the City of Glasgow, including the fee-paying schools, and it offers considerable scope for social training. There is the important point that the non-academic pupil has many extra curricula activities in which he can participate.

I think that the pupil benefits considerably from the facilities which are provided in the comprehensive schools of extra curricula activities. If a mistake has been made in assessing a child's ability under the promotion scheme it cannot be rectified, but if a mistake has been made in the transfer from the primary department to the secondary department of a comprehensive school there is an opportunity to catch up with the error.

On balance, and with the abundant evidence that we have in the comprehensive schools in Glasgow, I would like the Secretary of State to be more emphatic in saying that that should be the system of the educational structure in Scotland. The sooner we remove all these barriers to the transfer of children, the better it will be. We know that at present the parents of children allocated to a junior secondary school feel that the child is a failure and we all know the effect that has upon the child.

My final reference is to the question of the alteration of the date of the school-leaving certificate from March to May this year. I know that as this is the first year this takes place it is probably too soon to pass an opinion on it, but already there have been grave misgivings by a number of headmasters as to the efficacy and advisability of this change. The Rector of Allan Glen's School, Glasgow, at the annual prize-giving, said: The universities, in many cases, are not holding provisional places for boys and there may be some lads, who, not knowing their passes, will not be able to attend the university at the beginning of the session in October. I think this is most regrettable and I feel that we must, out of sheer necessity, return to having the examination in March. I have discussed this with headmasters and many of the pupils and I have been surprised to learn from the pupils that they were disappointed in that it cut out a lot of their extra-curricula activities, and that some of them had not been able to enter for the musical festival in Glasgow, and to take part in other spheres of cultural activity. I think that the first impact of this change-over has not been a good one. While in theory it looked as if it might be a practical proposition, I am afraid that on the first year's experience we must have another look at it.

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and. I shall not say anything more. There are so many problems in education that, whichever aspect we touch upon, we are bound to find that there is something which could be remedied if the Government were prepared to be a little more generous in their financial allocations. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be so com- placent as to believe that the mere presentation of this Report, together with the reports of the many working parties that he has set up—which reports he will not act upon—will persuade us that he is discharging his duties adequately as the chief officer for education for Scotland.

6.20 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern), both at the beginning and at the end of his speech, touched upon the subject of finance. Although there is no doubt that financial limitations hinder education, it would be wrong to think that finance is our only trouble. My only comment on finance is that, split up as it now is between the national Exchequer and local authorities, an unfair burden is placed upon the ratepayer.

Nowadays, all our teachers' salaries are negotiated on a national basis, and there is a need to reconsider the way in which the provision of the necessary money should be spread as between local authorities and the Government. This is all the more necessary because rates are levied on householders, whereas taxation falls on the bulk of individuals. We need to spend more money on education every year, and the burden on the ratepayer is becoming out of all proportion. I hope that it will be possible to reconsider the question and at least to charge the whole of that part of the cost of education which derives from teachers' salaries to the national Exchequer, and possibly to alter the proportion spent on school buildings.

I welcome the building programme completions which have been outlined by my right hon. Friend. It is a good thing to maintain local interest in the building programme. Nevertheless, I often wonder whether we spend, not on bricks and mortar but on the frills, so to speak, money which might he better spent in raising teachers' salaries. This argument is backed up by a report in a local newspaper in my county about a school which has an establishment in the Highlands to which it takes its pupils for recreation, nature study, and so on. Although it is only right that the children should be taken to a place of a reasonable standard, it appears that plans have been made to turn this into a sort of luxury home. That would be taking away the whole purpose of the establishment, which is to provide character training, nature study, and so on. Unnecessary money is often spent in this way.

All those who have spoken, and especially the Secretary of State, have underlined the difficulty caused by staff shortages. On page 31 of the Report reference is made to television as an aid to teaching. We shall be suffering from a shortage of teachers for several years to come, and greater use could be made of television teaching, not in the primary grades but later on, and in further education. We should make the best use of this new adjunct to education. The Report mentions that 90 per cent. of Scottish schools are equipped with radio, but that only 350 are using television.

In practically all the Scottish debates that the House has had recently hon. Members on both sides have referred to the difficulties which Scotland is experiencing in employment, and to the need to train our young people adequately, so that Scotland can take advantage of the newer industries and skills. For that reason we must welcome the steps which the Secretary of State is taking to try to increase day-release classes. At the same time, we must admit that we appear to be worse off in this respect than does England. We welcome the Report of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, but we must urge that greater steps should be taken to speed up the number of day-release places available.

Several hon. Members have spoken about the universities. Since I have St. Andrew's University in my constituency this is, naturally, a very important matter to me. I cannot help feeling that the Government are underestimating the strain upon and the demand for university places that is likely to develop in the next few years. It is not only a question of a bulge in the population; there is a growing demand from all kinds of people for university education. An 18-year-old Canadian niece of mine has been staying with me and I have had the advantage of hearing the views of the young people of Canada. I am sure that the demand for university places will be greater than the Government are likely to make available.

The requirement should be reassessed. It is easy enough to say that the difficulty will not be overcome by opening a new university, because it would take too long, but we might consider separating Dundee and St. Andrew's University, so as to provide a new university more quickly.

Mr. Rankin

We have only recently united them, after a big struggle.

Sir J. Gilmour

I agree, but the situation changes very quickly nowadays. Simply because we have made a decision we must not always believe that it is the right one.

Mr. Rankin

This is a fresh view.

Sir J. Gilmour

I do not know. Everyone should be prepared to admit that he makes mistakes at times.

I made my maiden speech only a short time ago, and I appreciate the great success which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) had when he made his tonight. He underlined the need for humanity and understanding—the need to get to know pupils, and to establish the right relationship between teachers and the younger generation. The country—from the point of view of industry, Government and Opposition—is not led by those with the highest academic qualifications. Leadership is something which does not necessarily come in the earliest years of life.

Scotland must not be too concerned about the standard of the top class of young people, many of whom will get on remarkably well by their own efforts. We must spend more time and energy in making certain that the average person receives a better education, so that, taking his place in industry, commerce, teaching or any of the other professions, he will be able to play his full part. The cleverest people will look after themselves. They cannot be kept down. It is the others who need leading and encouraging, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will spare no pains to make sure that the needs of that class of person receive the most urgent consideration.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) has said, but with one or two cautions. I indicated one in my interruption. As he knows, we are striving for a fifth university, and we do not want to be distracted from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) put forward this afternoon one very valid reason why we want it, and we do not want to be deflected from our course. Already, there has been the suggestion that because the Royal College of Science and Technology has achieved degree-awarding status it should now become the fifth university.

That, in my view, and in the view of a great many people who want to see the fifth university, is not the answer to the problem which faces us at university level, and least of all is the suggestion made by the hon. Baronet, that having recently united St. Andrew's and Dundee into one university we should now achieve our fifth university by separating the two of them. That I would oppose, because, again, it is not the answer to our fundamental problem.

The other little caution which I would put before the hon. Baronet is this. I agree, of course, that radio, film and television have their place in teaching, and that radio and the film have been doing it very well for a long time. To some extent I was the pioneer in introducing the film to further education thirty years ago in the City of Glasgow —in face of a tremendous amount of opposition from most unexpected sources. Nevertheless, it has proved its use in educating our young people.

When the hon. Gentleman mentioned television I wondered if he had in his mind the suggestion which has been put forward in certain quarters and journals, that, because of the teacher shortage which faces us, television should be the medium of helping to overcome the shortage. I welcome television as an aid in education, but not as a substitute for the teacher. I think—and I say so after a fairly long experience of the work of teaching, and I believe that many of my teacher colleagues would agree with me—that in the training of our young there is no substitute for the human element in the teaching profession.

I want to confine myself to one particular aspect of the problem which we are discussing in a wider context. I want to look more closely than has been done so far at the impact of these problems we are talking about on the City of Glasgow. Like others here, I am a Member for a Glasgow division and, of course, I want to approach the problem as Glasgow sees it today. I want to take only one aspect of that problem as it faces Glasgow, and that is the staffing aspect.

I agree, of course, with what the hon. Baronet said, that we want more buildings, that we want more and better equipment, and that we want more facilities. All these things are necessities, but the major problem which faces us now in Glasgow, and in Scotland as a whole, is the teacher shortage. Having all the other things but not having the teachers still places education in almost insuperable difficulty.

In dealing with the problem as it appears to us in Glasgow I want, briefly, to look backwards, because I want to place it in its historical setting, not going too far back in history, but only a matter of a few years. My refreshment is derived from as good a source as I could find․my own speeches on this question. On 25th March, 1959, in the last Parliament, I raised the major problems which we are dealing with this afternoon. I hope that in this Chamber it is not an unusual course for a Member to quote himself.

I used these words: At this moment, there are 500 classes in Glasgow which are over-size. I went on a little later to make a prophecy, that part-time education for many Glasgow children is a certainty for years to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 1478.] It had not just come, but I said it was a certainty. If, with the same certainty, I could have forecast the Derby winner a few months later I might have put more than the usual amount on my opinion.

That situation was arising in Glasgow through lack of staff. We appointed the Knox Committee to inquire into the problem of the shortage of teachers, among other things, and two measures were recommended as being likely to bring early substantial relief to the schools. The first, in the words of the Knox Committee, was to grant indefinite deferment forthwith to teachers. The important word there is the word "forthwith". The second was to pay pension plus salary to those who had retired from teaching and then returned to it.

That Report was made in 1957, and when I raised the matter on the Adjournment, in March, 1959, the Secretary of State for Scotland had done nothing about those two recommendations at all. Admittedly, they were short term, but refusal to apply them inflamed the situation then and has made it worse for us today. Now, of course, the right hon. Gentleman has one in operation, but he put it into operation when it really did not matter. The other one is still awaiting his verdict.

On the long-term side, if we compare 1939 with 1959, we see that the teacher supply in those 20 years increased by 20 per cent. Glasgow's share of that increase was 8.8 per cent. I pointed that out in 1959, and I pointed out a number of reasons why that happened, first, the slowness of promotion in Glasgow, and then the lack of housing, the higher cost of living, and the poor—the exceptionally poor—quality of some of our older schools. Therefore, on that occasion I argued for a salary differential for Glasgow teachers. I put that proposal to the Secretary of State.

I said then: The outlook for education in Glasgow is grim."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1959: Vol. 602, c. 1481.] There is no one who is associated with education in Glasgow who would deny the truth of that today. We were told then by those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Government Front Bench that the bulge was something which was temporary in operation: it would pass. I am trying still to convince them that that is not true.

The Secretary of State today referred repeatedly to the bulge as being something which will pass—although he said that another bulge has developed. The question of bulges does not arise in the problem. We are now on a new plateau of education, and our problem is to try to lift the Secretary of State on to the plateau on which we on this side are assembled awaiting his arrival.

I was told in the concluding part of the Government's reply that night that great advances have been made in education. In their view, everything was blooming or in bud; there was no thought of a blight in their mind.

In the following year, on 7th April, I returned to the assault and said: Last March I warned that, if the Secretary of State did not show more regard to what was happening in Glasgow, part-time education would require to be introduced into the city's educational system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1960 Vol. 621, c. 734.] That happened within five months of my speech, and when the spring term, 1960, commenced 2,197 secondary pupils in Glasgow were subject to part-time education and 1,174 pupils in the primary schools were in the same position. That concludes the historical aspect of my speech, just a little history as a background for what I am now going to say.

What is the position in Glasgow today? According to the Report for 1961, the oversize classes in 1959 numbered 500. They now number 723. Glasgow's staff have fallen by 100 in the same period—in two years—while the overall national figure has improved by 319, which means that the scheme of voluntary restraint which the Secretary of State put forward in Circular 499 issued in May last has failed in Glasgow and has been of no help whatever.

Short time and part-time teaching which were unheard of in Glasgow at the beginning of 1959, are now a regular feature of primary and secondary education in the city. That is an appalling situation to have reached in the chief commercial city of Scotland. If Glasgow is not healthy, the rest of Scotland cannot be healthy. Therefore, our problem is not merely a Glasgow problem but a national problem.

The 3,371 scholars who were receiving part-time education when I spoke in 1960 had become 4.970 by March of this year. In addition, Glasgow is now the only area in Scotland which is affected by this problem. The additional number of teachers that we should require in Glasgow if we were to attain the staffing standards existing in Aberdeen at the moment would be 2,286. If we were to try to attain the staffing position in Dundee we should require another 825 teachers. If we were to try to achieve the staffing standards in Edinburgh, we should require 969 extra teachers.

This is put forward in no carping spirit. We welcome progress in every area of Scotland. It is merely that we want Glasgow to take part in the progress which is going on evidently, according to statistics, in other parts of the country. In turn, I am anxious to see our motto "Let Glasgow flourish" apply to the education of its school children. After all, one-fifth of Scotland's boys and girls live in Glasgow, and because of the maldistribution of teachers and shortage of teachers for which the Government must be held responsible, these children do not receive the education to which they are entitled and which they would receive if they lived elsewhere in Scotland. This fact emphasises what I have already said, which is the national aspect of the problem, and this cannot be solved by Glasgow by its own efforts.

How are matters progressing today? Here, I turn to Cmnd. Paper 1601, dealing with the supply of teachers in Scotland, and issued on 8th January. The number of boys and girls aged 15 and over who were attending school in Scotland in 1956 was 35,374. The number attending in 1960 was 48,663. That is an amazing growth, at the rate of 9 per cent. per annum. We all welcome it, because the more fifth formers and sixth-formers that we have the better. Nothing is of greater importance to any nation today than brains.

There are shortages of well educated and trained people in a great many services in Scotland; in industry generally, in medicine, in science and, at the very fount, in teaching itself. If we are weak in the fundamental supply service of teaching we shall be weak in all the other services which depend upon it. The Fourth Report on the Supply of Teachers in Scotland says: But there is a new factor, namely, that in the summer of 1962 full presentation in the Scottish Certificate of Education examination on the Ordinary grade will be possible in the fourth year of the secondary course. As we have heard, this has just taken place.

To gain definite evidence of the effects of the change, a questionnaire was sent to 60 representative secondary schools. I quote from the Report: The answers suggested that in October, 1961, there were 6,000 more pupils in the fourth year classes of secondary schools, or aged 15 or over in the third year, than there had been a year before…". But to this factor we must add three others. First, according to inquiries going on, which are referred to in this report, the sizes of the birth groups already born and the probable sizes of groups yet unborn are on the increase. Survival rates among children today are also increasing.

We have also to consider the growth of the provision for nursery schools and classes. Therefore, taking all these factors into account, the estimated rôle of education authority and grant-aided schools will have risen from the 887,000 of 1960–61 to 917,000 by 1966 and 991,500 by 1975. In other words, by 1975 there will be almost 1 million children in these schools in Scotland.

What has been done to meet the need of which we know? A total of 45,151 teachers will be required by 1966. This figure covers further education, colleges of education, administration and the inspectorate, in addition to education authority, grant-aided, approved and independent schools. We shall require 49,763 teachers by 1975. The supply estimated to be available to meet these needs will be 40,240 in 1966. In other words by 1966 we will be 4,911 teachers short of the number necessary to meet the demand in that year. We know that now in 1962. In 1975, the supply will be 43,200 to meet a demand for 49,763. The shortage will have grown to 6,563 by 1975. At the moment our guides tell us that the staff shortage is expected to go on growing larger and larger right up to 1975.

One cannot possibly exaggerate in words the gravity of these figures. We look round the world and see the school-leaving age being raised to 16 and 17 in some of the Commonwealth nations and we still cannot think, in the situation now facing us, of the raising of the school-leaving age to 16 as long as we have a Tory Government in power. These figures, of course, will bear most harshly on Glasgow for the reasons which I have given. I therefore make two proposals. I made them three years ago and, as usually happens to some of my proposals, nobody has bothered about them. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will instil some interest in them in the mind of the Secretary of State.

I propose, first, because Glasgow fears that this increasing shortage would bear more severely on the city—as events are proving today with the existing shortages—than it will bear on other parts of Scotland, that teachers serving in Glasgow should be paid a special allowance. I know that this may be contentious, but we must face the situation. If there is to be hardship and a quota system then, within that system, we must have some sort of fairness. The making of special allowances used to be the practice before we had national salaries. The suggestion, therefore, is not novel. It also has a precedent, because the present salary scales permit special payments to attract teachers to remote areas. While Glasgow is not remote, its position is certainly unique and, therefore, I make that proposal.

Secondly, in view of the fact that there is a considerable movement of teachers to and from the city due to housing difficulties, I suggest that we should consider the provision of houses for Glasgow teachers. Glasgow's net loss in this flow was 58 in 1957, and in 1958–59 we lost 73 due to this movement induced by lank of housing accommodation. This trend in the adverse balance still continues. Again, this is not a novel suggestion, because I understand that the provision of houses for teachers is accepted in eight areas in Scotland. Houses are provided at rents equivalent to the rateable value in those areas.

Why cannot this be done in Glasgow? Is it because the Secretary of State lays down that an economic rent must be applied to houses for teachers in the city? Why should that be so only in Glasgow? If this is correct, it involves annual charges for rent, rates and maintenance of nearly £300 per annum, which means that young teachers simply prefer to leave the city.

The problem of sub-standard education for an increasing number of our children becomes more difficult to solve as the years go by. We all lament the incidence of what is called delinquency, but I ask the Secretary of State to ponder seriously on the contribution made to its continuance by his rejection of the proposals which I have put forward and which would help in its diminution. I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that boys and girls attend school not only to learn, but to learn how to learn. This is perhaps the most important aspect of their school attendance in the early years.

Short-time and part-time teaching is a sure way to throttle this basic requirement. If we weaken the foundation on which all other forms of education grow, we threaten our prosperity and our position as a pioneer in educational practice. I therefore appeal tonight to the Secretary of State for Scotland to face the future with the courage and determination demanded by the times in which we live; and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman enter the Chamber at this vital moment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)

Before I fall into the temptation of following all the arguments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) in the course of his criticisms of Glasgow Corporation, I shall refer to the very fine maiden speech which we had earlier from the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here. I hope that we shall hear a great deal more from him in our Scottish debates, with his fresh mind and new approach to these subjects. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it was probably one of the best speeches in this debate. It was one of the best maiden speeches it has been my privilege to hear.

We have heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Govan about the shortcomings of Glasgow. He seems to forget that the education authority in the City of Glasgow is Glasgow Corporation. In my humble opinion he ought to address his remarks to Glasgow Corporation and induce it to put its own house in order.

Mr. Rankin

The hon. Gentleman is too humble in his opinion. This is the place where I put my criticisms and suggestions, and this is the place where I should do so.

Mr. Hendry

If the hon. Gentleman will read the Government's Blue Book, Education in Scotland in 1961, he will find out what the Government are doing in the rest of Scotland. As I have said on many previous occasions, Glasgow is not necessarily Scotland. There is a great deal of Scotland outside Glasgow. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the evidence of what is being done instead of grumbling about the Secretary of State and about the Scottish Department of Education, he will realise that there is cause to congratulate the Secretary of State on the magnificent work which has been done during the past ten years.

I say that advisedly. Some years ago, right hon. and hon. Members opposite raised the school-leaving age without giving the slightest thought to what they would have to do as a consequence. They had not the faintest idea of what form of education would have to be produced for the children in that final year between 14 and 15. It was not until 1955 that any real thought was given to the education which should be given to these children, particularly those who would not go on to a certificate course.

In 1955, there was published a Blue Book, Junior Secondary Education, and this has more or less been the Bible ever since. Nevertheless, even at that, it is a rather woolly sort of Bible for junior education, and I suggest that a great deal of thought on the subject is still required. For far too long junior secondary education has been regarded rather as the poor relation in education in Scotland, and new thought on the subject is necessary.

It was a great delight to me to find in the Report on Education in Scotland for 1961 that more than twenty pages were devoted to junior secondary education in Scotland and its importance today. However, although I congratulate the Secretary of State and I praise his policy in education, I am very disappointed to find that, even in this Blue Book, there is no specific aim for junior secondary education. It is not specifically laid down what the teachers ought to try to do in the junior secondary school as opposed to the senior secondary school, and between the two there is the world of difference.

In the senior secondary school it is very easy to carry on with the sort of course which the teacher has himself or herself gone through at school. It is an academic course. The teacher is an academic sort of person who sets out to teach those children who are capable of benefiting from this sort of course. But, if we are to keep children in secondary school until they are 15 and there seems to be no hope of their reaching leaving certificate standard at O-level or even at junior level, a great deal of thought must be given to making the best use of the opportunities which these children have at school. The aim for these children has never been stated.

I was rather concerned about this matter when I read the Report and I set out to find out what the aim was. I visited no fewer than six junior secondary schools in Aberdeenshire to find out what the headmasters thought was the aim of their endeavours in junior secondary education. I got six separate opinions. None of them seemed to have the same idea as the others. One gentleman seemed to think that his purpose was to give what I can only describe as a very mild or modified form of senior secondary course. He went in for the academic languages. He tried to teach a bit of literature, a bit of algebra, and all the rest. He was the first to admit that many of the children to wham he was trying to administer the course were not capable of benefiting from it. Another headmaster, on the other hand, seemed to think that the course he should carry through was very largely vocational, with little or no educational content.

A third headmaster seemed to have a very balanced view. He put it in this way. As regards English, it was his endeavour to teach the very lowest stream the basic essentials of English composition and English interpretation. I think that that is the technical term. As for mathematics, he thought that for the lowest stream he ought to aim at such mechanical calculation as might be valuable to the children in later life. I pointed out to him that in this aim he would be up against the difficulty that there would be in the school a stream of very much brighter children who could benefit from more advanced education. He agreed and said that he had tried, so far as he could, to introduce a balance in the school, even at the junior secondary level, with different streams. Where a child showed himself capable of benefiting from higher education, he was put into an even higher stream.

This system has, generally speaking, worked well in Aberdeenshire. Children start off at the little junior secondary school where practically all children go for their early stages of education at least up to the end of the second year. At the end of the second year, they are graded again and some, perhaps, are sent to another school or even to take the full five-year course if that appears justified. The whole system has worked very well. We have heard a good deal from the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the difficulty of assessing children at the age of 11 or 12. I was told of a child who had been assessed as fit only for, junior secondary education but who, as a result of this system, had developed later and had gone on from the little junior secondary school to take the third year at another school. After the third year, she had been re-classified and sent on to a senior secondary school for the full five-year course, where she did reasonably well. That was an exceptional case, but I was told that there were lots of other cases of children developing to a greater extent than was originally expected and who had done rather well.

The teachers who told me these things stressed the necessity of dealing very carefully with the child who is assessed in the lowest stream. A child in that position requires much more careful and skilled teaching than the clever child. The clever one, they told me, requires not so much teaching but guidance in his own reading. It is a very much easier proposition to teach a clever child than to teach a dull one, but, if great care and skill is used in teaching duller children, the results can be extremely rewarding.

With the greatest respect, I suggest to my right hon. Friend that his Department might well apply itself to the formula- tion of the aims of what we are trying to achieve in junior secondary education, rather as so many of us were taught to do in the Army when appreciating a situation. The first thing is to ascertain the aim. One must express the aim very succinctly, setting out what one is trying to do. Having decided upon that, one can work out a method of achieving the aim one has set.

It seems to me that there is in junior secondary education a tremendous opportunity if only guidance is given to those who are running the schools as to what they are expected to do. If thought were given to that and the matter were explained clearly, not in flowery language, the results could be excellent. There is a great deal of good stuff in these Blue Books, but, unfortunately, it is expressed in rather school-masterly language, and the basic essentials which every teacher must have instilled in him at the very outset of a junior secondary job are not laid down.

I have given a lot of thought to this matter and, although any opinion I express must be an amateur opinion, I submit that these points are worthy of a little study and thought. We read on page 5 of the 1955 Blue Book, Junior Secondary Education: Junior secondary education must resist the tendency to imitate blindly the senior secondary school. Satisfactory junior secondary courses cannot be provided simply by modifying, diluting or by otherwise adapting senior secondary courses…Almost all junior secondary teachers have, as pupils, passed through a senior secondary course, and it requires conscious and deliberate efforts on their part to avoid the tendency to lead their pupils along the paths that they themselves have followed. This tendency is perhaps most marked in schools where the presence of senior secondary alongside junior secondary classes may tend to discourage radical departures from the practices of the former. That leads me to ask the question whether the type of teacher who is being employed in junior secondary education is necessarily the best type of teacher for that purpose. I am subject to correction in this matter, but I understand that the aim is that, as far as possible, a junior secondary school teacher should be a graduate, and not only that but either an honours graduate or possess secondary qualifications under Chapter 39.

I begin to wonder whether that type of teacher is necessarily the best type of teacher for that school, for the reason that that type of teacher is, in the very nature of things, an academic person. As one headmaster put it to me, he would far rather, as an honours graduate in English, dissect Lycidas than teach the elements of English composition, such as writing a letter applying for a job. He was the first to admit that the ability to write that letter is so very much more important from the point of view of the child than any ability in the higher flights of literature. Would it not be possible to attract a vast amount of human ability and skill in teaching these pupils in other respects? I know that this is probably heresy, but I suggest that possibly an honours graduate or even an ordinary graduate is not necessarily the best type of teacher. I understand that the teaching profession as such regards the possession of a university degree as essential in a male teacher. I suggest not only to my right hon. Friend but to hon. Members opposite that much thought along these lines might produce very good results.

There is a scheme at the moment—we all know about it—for bringing people from other walks of life into the teaching profession late in life. I wonder if that could not be extended, because where men are concerned, I understand that the only men who are eligible for entering into the teaching profession are graduates. It seems to me that that is a pity. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are a tremendous number of men who have achieved what can he called a reasonably good standard in education, possessing the higher leaving certificate or, as it will be in future, the O-level certificate, whose ability in the English language is reasonably good, and whose ability in the lower branches of mathematics is also reasonably good, who are capable of teaching these children the required basic essentials. These children could be taught the basic essentials in that way. If it appeared to the teacher, in consultation with the headmaster, that the child was capable of higher education, then, as happens in Aberdeenshire, the child could be passed to a rather higher kind of school where he would have the advantage of a teacher who was more academic but possibly was not such a good teacher.

Those of us who have been in the Services know the type who is a born instructor. There is a great number of them to be found among N.C.O.s in the Army, and I have no doubt there are many others in the other Services as well. These men spend a great part of their lives instructing, though not themselves highly educated. They have a flair for instruction and can teach even the most stupid people to do the jobs they are required to do. A great many of these people do not remain N.C.O.s. Many of them get commissions as schoolmasters, and they do extremely well. In a great many cases, these people sit the Services examinations in education, and I know of a case in which a warrant officer with a first-class certificate of education came out of the Army at 40 years of age and had great difficulty in getting a job. He is now working as a postman. That man could not teach in a junior secondary school. If, however, the colleges of education were open to people of that category—obviously, people with brains and a flair for instruction—there would be a vast reservoir of skilled people who are suitable for that sort of job who could be brought into the teaching profession very quickly when we require them. We do not require them so much in ten years' time as we need them now. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this.

As far as I can see, there is no scarcity of people being chosen for the higher technical education. Whatever we say about Scottish education, outside possibly the City of Glasgow and one or two places like that, we cannot find much fault with the selection of children for the type of secondary education we have. It seems to me that 36 per cent., which is the average figure in Scotland of children capable of higher education, have a very good chance of getting it. It seems to me that there is a unlimited demand for a child who has gat the ability for a rather lower level of education but who has not got the ability to sit the O-level examination. Here I think there should be some very careful thought given to it with a view to co-ordinating the needs of industry with the possibilities of education. I do not think that this is being done enough. I understand that even the lowest qualifications which it is possible to get in junior secondary school—the junior leaving certificate—is not regarded by the trade schools or the technical colleges as being sufficient for entry for the trades courses in these schools and that they insist upon having their own entrance examination, which may or may not bear any relation to the courses which these children have been given in their schools.

It would be a tremendous advantage, from the point of view of the skilled artisan and the semi-skilled person, if there were a great deal more close co-operation between industry and education. I ask my right hon. Friend to think along these lines and to see whether he could not get very much closer links between industry and the schools and thus make certain that our education is geared to the needs of industry in all its forms so that these children leave school with not only a first-class academic education but with certain ability along the lines of a chosen vocation.

I think it is right to say that my right hon. Friend has done extremely well on these lines as far as rural subjects and nautical subjects are concerned. Those of us who represent rural constituencies know about the tremendous advantages which are gained by the rural economy classes in the junior secondary schools. This experiment has been very successful. Similarly, along the coast boys are trained in nautical subjects, and it has been a success. But this experiment has not been applied sufficiently to the industrial parts, in the South and elsewhere. Even in places where there is high unemployment, it does not seem to me to have taken place to the extent which it might have done, to the very great advantage of the community.

I understand that in the United States there is a growing body of unemployed among the people who possess no skill whatever but that in the United States there is virtually no unemployment among boys trained at or after leaving school, on the basis of a manual skill in same trade or another. If this is important in the United States, it is even more important in this country, where we have a much smaller population to deal with.

Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)

The hon. Gentleman does not need to go to the United States to prove that. If he would look at any Scottish industrial area, he would find a higher incidence of juvenile unemployment among boys from schools with no vocational training.

Mr. Hendry

The hon. Gentleman simply underlines my point. If the United States cannot afford it, we can afford it very much less, and I beg of my right hon. Friend to think along these lines and to do something to produce this liaison between industry and education for which I am pleading.

Every boy and girl has basically some sort of skill. The job of the schoolmaster is to find out what that skill is and to encourage and nurture it. It will never happen, however, if schoolmasters and schoolmistresses are given the sort of woolly advice contained in the 1955 Blue Book, which tells them to experiment and to try to work things out for themselves. It would add enormously to our educational success in Scotland if a clear directive of the aim to strive for were laid down by the Scottish Education Department.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I propose to intervene for only a short time, because a number of hon. Members on both sides wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) will forgive me if I do not follow him into what seemed to me to be the labyrinth of his thinking aloud. The hon. Member put forward a great many ideas, some of which probably would not stand up to critical examination.

It is true, for example, that some people have a natural capacity for nursing and healing. My mother used to be consulted by all sorts of people who could not afford to go to the doctor. There are people who go to wart doctors, people who go to doctors who prescribe all sorts of vegetable cures, and people have great faith in them. Nobody objects to these things. What society does, however, is to say that before people are entrusted with the right to treat people medically, society must assure itself that they have some knowledge of the human body.

Before we hand children over to adults, there must be some social guarantee that those who deal with them have a background of knowledge and not merely inspiration and gifts. I realise that the best teachers are probably born and not produced by a university. Nevertheless, society must have that background assurance.

The hon. Member criticised the raising of the school-leaving age to 15. Has he any idea what is happening in the education of children in Russia, America and other countries? We would be even further behind if that step had not been taken. In some respects, there never would have been a time when the school-leaving age could have been raised, because there were always employers who were wanting to employ children who were immature because they got them as cheap labour. We cannot afford to have uneducated children who are not educated at least to the age of 15. It is a tragedy that the age cannot be even higher.

Everybody, including the Secretary of State, but except the hon. Member himself, welcomes the fact that so many children are continuing at school beyond the age of 15. In a contradictory way, the hon. Member praised the children who had qualified in the junior secondary school to take still more education. The hon. Member cannot both want children to stop at the age of 14 and to go on after they are 15. He needs to tidy up a great deal of his thinking in regard to education as a whole.

Mr. Hendry

I criticised, not the raising of the school-leaving age to 15, but its being raised to that age without thought.

Mr. Woodburn

A great deal of thought had been given by educationists for forty or fifty years. If the hon. Member was not aware of that, the Government of the day were quite aware of it and knew what they were doing. It was a great experiment, because nobody knew quite what the form of education would be.

One thing which that additional education was not intended to do was to make further hoops to jump or to try to make academic people out of those who did not want to be academic. Children are different. Some want to do things and not to sit and think. Some children cannot be tied to a desk. They have energy and they want it to be directed into the best channels.

The raising of the school-leaving age gave to teachers for the first time in their lives an opportunity not to work against the collar of an examination for a university to which the child would never go, but an opportunity to try to develop a child's mind according to its bent. Since the hon. Member has visited a number of junior secondary schools, he has discovered teachers who have made a success of that.

In my constituency—Clackmannan—teachers have made a great success of it. Employers were enthusiastic about the change and the difference in the children who came to be apprentices and who had passed through the junior secondary school as against others who used to leave at the age of 14 and came without the extra training. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will not dismiss these things lightly. This is something which must be developed, and it is being developed extremely successfully in many of our cities.

Edinburgh is proud of its junior secondary schools and of some of the successes that it has had. If children there qualify and want to go on to be academic, there is nothing to prevent them. But the world is not full of academic people. It needs people who work with tools, in factories and in engineering. They need brains as well, and they have them. We cannot have brainless people working with electronic machinery and the like. Therefore, there are all sorts of ways in which to develop our mixed community.

We certainly need a large number of teachers. One of the tragedies which has come out of the debate from the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) is that in a few years' time Scotland will be 4,000 or 7,000 teachers short. It is no good moaning about it. If that is the fact, what are we to do about it? Merely to state the fact will not solve it. I address my contribution to the solution of this question.

We can get more teachers if we reduce the standards. That course has been rejected. We have a lot of uncertificated teachers, who are trying to do their best but who do not possess the necessary qualifications to be the best. Can we do anything with these teachers? Is there any reason why there should not be vocation courses at the universities or at the colleges of education to try to give these people who are willing to do the job the necessary qualifications to do it? I suggest that the Secretary of State might consider this for a start.

Part-time education might prove to be something of an advantage. America developed its high-class machinery only because it did not have cheap labour. For generations, America did not have the cheap or surplus labour that we had. Because of scarcity of labour, it had to develop machines to do the job.

Education includes science. I complained several years ago that one body of people in the community who did not seem to be using science to improve their productivity were those who were supposed to teach science, the educationists. Science should be used to increase productivity per teacher, the same as is done by anybody else. Let us take the simple way of doing it. If children have to have part-time education, the first thing is to adopt the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and teach children how to learn.

The Dalton system starts with very small infants with projects. I have seen infants aged 7, 8 and 9 doing projects on their own because they have been taught to do them. A wealthy woman who sent her child to a school of that kind said that she was astonished that a girl of 8 or 9 should develop a capacity for doing and learning things for herself when that did not usually occur until a person went to the university.

Our Scottish schools have suffered from too much suppression and too little expression. In other words, children ought to be taught to express themselves. They ought to be given projects. If the Secretary of State looks back to the circular which I issued on primary education, when I was asked to abolish home lists, I said that I thought that was the wrong way to go about it. I quite agree that giving children more books to read and sums to do was a mistake. One of the tragedies of today is that people do not know how to use their leisure. We stopped them working and we stopped them delivering newspapers, and they got into mischief. They have to find on outlet for what they are doing.

To give a child projects ought to be part of education. In some cases this is done. Children are given the job of finding out all about their town. They visit factories and other places and they inquire into what is being done. If a child is taught to learn it will develop a new character. That is one of the primary purposes of education. If a child learns how to learn it will go on educating itself properly for the rest of its life. Where it is impossible to obtain teachers to nurse children into knowing things the time should be used to give them a job to try to teach themselves, or to learn by doing things. A great many children will learn far more by doing things than from lessons or lectures given by a teacher.

Science is available to assist in teaching. A great deal of teaching starts with lectures. Take mathematics as an example. The right hon. Gentleman said that mathematics would present a great problem. Not every mathematics teacher can teach mathematics. There are great differences. Some children fail examinations because they have been taught by the wrong kind of teacher. I know of a student who failed an examination, but who, when his teacher was changed, succeeded in passing the examination because the new teacher had the ability to teach mathematics. There are geniuses who teach mathematics and we have the machinery by which it would be possible to make the teaching of such people available to all the children.

Mr. Dempsey

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one must also take into consideration the type of material which the teacher is attempting to teach?

Mr. Woodburn

We are assuming that a teacher is teaching children who desire to learn mathematics. If they are capable of learning they will learn better from a good teacher than from a bad teacher. The point is that there are different teachers, and if it were possible to make the best teacher available to all the children that would be a great advantage.

Anyone who listened to Sir Oliver Lodge lecturing on electricity or on science could hardly help but learn from it. Anyone who listened to Sir Walford Davies lecturing on music might well think that he could himself start to compose tunes and songs. The teaching ability of similar geniuses should be made, and can by television, be made available to children all over the country. Children can learn from such people in a way in which it would be impossible for an ordinary teacher to teach them. The resources which are available to the B.B.C. or to I.T.V. are not available to all our teachers. Months may be spent preparing a programme and the subject dealt with will stand out. The teacher may even imitate such a programme and spend a whole evening preparing something for the next day's lesson.

There is no reason why a teacher should not be assisted by an explanation provided either by a television programme, or—this would be a much more economical way to do it—by the use of sound film. It would be too expensive to continue to broadcast the same lessons year after year or month after month. But if a film were made, it could be used to capture the attention of the children. The same film could be used for generations. This is being done in medical schools to some extent and I cannot see why the same thing should not he done in our schools. If teachers are not available the children must be deprived of the privilege of being taught, or else a substitute must be found for the teacher.

I agree that after a lecture has been given, and an explanation, the teacher must do the teaching part of it. But by that time a great deal of the drudgery will have been taken out of the lesson. Any teacher who is called on to give the same lecture again and again is bound to get bored stiff. He will become stale. But if he is able to carry out his teaching part after the lecture has been given, it will come fresh to the children.

I am against the idea of endeavouring to make television a medium for this kind of thing because of the expense. But there is a man who lectures to children on painting. He receives many paintings and drawings from children every week. These children do not require to be drilled by a teacher into drawing and painting. They send in their own paintings and drawings to the lecturer by the thousand. I wrote to the B.B.C. suggesting that a colour film should be taken to be shown to the children, who would appreciate the colour.

I was told that this would be too expensive and that it was a matter for education authorities. It seems to me that education authorities and the television authorities work in different compartments, which is ridiculous. The B.B.C. and I.T.V. should co-operate with colleges of education to devise films and methods of putting science and mathematics across to the children.

I used to lecture on economics, and if anything can put people to sleep it is a lecture on economics.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Woodburn

To prevent the students from going to sleep I had to keep their attention, and I did it by the use of lantern slides. If one is explaining figures, after the first three sets have been given the brains of the listeners begin to get tired. But if the students can see the figures on a screen it will attract their attention and focus their interest. They will not be diverted by looking at the girls sitting nearby, or at the view through a window, or by the pictures on the wall. The matter becomes interesting because it has been illustrated. The eye can learn in a flash what an hour or three hours of lecturing can never teach.

It seems strange to me that the world of education is so slow in making use of science. It is tragic, as is revealed by the Report, that there are so few television sets available in Scottish schools to make use even of the few television lessons which are broadcast. I raised the matter some years ago and we do not seem to have made much progress since then.

There is one hopeful thing. It is the Scottish film library, in Glasgow. From there films and film strips are distributed throughout the schools and I am quite sure that the teachers derive great assistance from their use. I should like to have seen a great deal more in the Report about this matter. It is treated as a sideline of no importance, but it is something which is fundamental. If we are to be faced with a shortage of 7,000 teachers, some other way must be found to reach the children and to instruct them. Why should children be sent home through lack of teachers if we can find some way whereby the genius of the best teachers in the world may be made available to all the children all over the country at the same time, or at a time to suit the school if films are used instead?

I wish to emphasise this matter because it is so important and because it seems to me tragic that we should anticipate a time when we shall be short of 7,000 teachers. An impossible burden will be placed on those teachers who are available. The account of what is happening in Glasgow is so depressing. One does not like to think that so many of the children in such a great city are not getting a proper education. If the Secretary of State does not do something about it I hope that the Glasgow Corporation will look at the possibility of making greater use of science to supplement the efforts of the teachers and overcome the deficiencies. The use of the film library in Glasgow could be developed. I am sure that the Government could help in such development if the desire were there.

A college of education could be something to inspire teachers and train them in the use of these facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan said that it was thirty years since he started using films. I began to use film strips at a time when the first little firm in London began to make them. I have used them ever since. One gets more across in half an hour with a film strip than with all the most wonderful lectures given by voice alone. The use of the eyes is just as important as the use of the ears. If we can enlist all the faculties of the child instead of only one while the others are diverted to all sorts of incidentals, we can make much more progress.

I hope that when the next Report comes it will tell of progress in supplementing teaching by the use of science and that Scotland will give a lead in this work. America has evidently made great progress. People have visited America to see what has been done. I cannot understand why progress here has been so slow and hesitant and why education, faced with this great problem, is not making use of the facilities which are at hand.

7.41 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean (Bute and North Ayrshire)

I find myself in agreement with a great deal of what the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshirt (Mr. Woodburn) has said. I am sure that a basic principle for any teacher—although my teaching has been limited and of a rather special character —must be to teach the pupil, as the right hon. Member put it, to learn to learn, to make his mind a useful and serviceable instrument. I also agree with what he said about the use of television and films. Like him, I have often found a film or a magic lantern a very useful device for keeping an audience awake.

There has been a considerable measure of agreement throughout this debate. That does not mean, of course, that we shall vote the same way, but a note of agreement has run through the debate and that note has been one of disquiet. I was glad to observe that the Secretary of State, when he opened the debate, showed every sign of sharing that disquiet. That is the best guarantee we have that something will be done about it. My right hon. Friend used the expression "disturbing" about the outlook with the shortage of teachers. That is one of the biggest problems which faces us. We live today in a highly competitive world, a world which is rapidly changing.

In education, it is of vital importance that we should adapt ourselves and make ourselves competitive if we are to survive. At present, not only Scotland but the United Kingdom as a whole has one of the lowest ratios of places for higher education in the whole Western world. That is a very disturbing state of affairs. What is equally, if not more disturbing is the rapidity with which we are being caught up and passed, not only by the Western world, but the Eastern world.

The Soviet Union now produces 130,000 science graduates and technologists every year. For the whole United Kingdom our output is about 13,000. Already, we are lagging far behind a country which, twenty or thirty years ago, we hardly needed to bother about as a competitor in these fields. Another example by which we could profit is the extremely effective links which exist in the Soviet Union between science and industry and between education and industry. That is something which we are only just beginning to touch on in this country.

I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State said about what is being done in this field and the measures taken for the expansion of technical education. I was also glad to hear of the new schools and colleges which are coming into being and also what he said about the importance of industrial firms taking steps to help themselves in this respect. We have to remember that Scotland, of all countries, can least afford to lag behind in this respect. If we are to get the prosperity which we all want for Scotland, if we are to get the new industry which we need to bring us employment, we have to depend in future not on national resources, but, in the first place, on brains and skill.

The same applies more and more to defence. We spend hundreds of thousands of millions of pounds on defence. No one would support that expenditure more sincerely than I do, but it is no good doing that if we are not to produce the scientists who can help us to hold our own in that field. That can be done only by improving the opportunities for higher education. What is at stake is the future of both Scotland in particular and the United Kingdom as a whole in a world which is changing every day and which every day is becoming more and more highly competitive.

At the beginning of the debate my right hon. Friend spoke of something of which we are all too much aware—the limited financial resources which are at the disposal of the Government. He spoke of the agonising decisions that he has to take every time he allots priorities. I wonder whether the time has not come in education for an agonising reappraisal of the whole system of priorities in Government expenditure. I have no doubt that we are moving into a future where if we are to have prosperity and full employment in Scotland, or even to carry on at all, we shall have to spend much more money on education.

Whatever else we economise on, the one thing we should not do is to skimp on education, especially university education. I have been encouraged by what my right hon. Friend said about the measures which have been taken already in this direction, but I think that we need more still. The Government programme for university education is not adequate. Not so long ago my noble Friend the Minister for Science, when speaking as Rector of Glasgow University, said that we should aim at 200,000 university places by 1970. His job as Minister for Science is to be more conscious than anyone else of the need to fulfil that target. I wish that the Government would make it their target, also.

I also hope that we shall get a fifth university in Scotland. I know that there is an argument that by the time the fifth university can be brought into existence the present population bulge will have subsided and there may not be the same need for university places. I cannot accept that argument. It seems to me a feeble argument, because even if the bulge has subsided we shall still need the places. Civil servants have a way of being obsessed by bulges. I have had some experience of dealing with Army manpower, and I suggest that we should remember that bulges take people by surprise; they have a way of occurring suddenly and subsiding suddenly—and not always when one expects them to do so.

I hope that in thinking of the future the Government will do everything in their power to try to increase the number of university places available, bulge or no bulge, because I am sure that the future of Scotland is bound to depend on that, in prosperity employment and everything else.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

On this occasion, it is a real and sincere pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). I agreed with him all the way through his remarks, and particularly in the latter part of his speech, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State was not so busy working with his papers as to miss what his hon. Friend said about the provision of university places. It will do something to remind the Secretary of State and his colleagues of what is required. What the hon. Member said about advances in Russian education has been summed up in an apt phrase by Professor Galbraith of America—"Either the Western world learns mathematics or science, or Russian". There is a great deal in that comment.

But the hon. Member's speech was in great contrast to that of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), and I can only hope that the Under-Secretary of State will pay no attention to that speech from Aberdeenshire, West. While listening to it the Secretary of State must have been saying, "Save me from my friends".

I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question about university entrants and certificates of fitness. He will perhaps recall that last October I asked a question about the figures for each of the last three years of senior secondary pupils who obtained certificates of fitness. He replied, The issue of these certificates is a function of the Scottish Universities Entrance Board, which is an autonomous body and which does not publish…figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1961; Vol. 646, c. 40.] When pressed, he admitted that it would be worthwhile to try to get this information. He said that he entirely agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) and added that we want all the relevant information we can get.

I had also asked about the statistical report which, under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1899, is authorised to be received by the Secretary of State from the universities. This is a unique Act which applies only to Scotland. My second question is whether the form in which those statistics and that information are provided has been modified since the report was instituted. Why is not this information given in greater detail? What are the reasons for the changes? Will the Minister include the information which we then sought?

What is the wastage rate of students in universities in the first year? This is information which ought to be given to the public. If public money is to be used by the university authorities, there ought to be a greater degree of public accountability so that, while not interfering with the independence of the universities in curricula or in choosing students, at least we can voice a public opinion whether the money which is being spent is being used for the best purpose in providing the greatest number of places for the increasing number of young people who are coming from our schools.

Recently we have had some criticism from the Chancellor of a university in Scotland in which he said that those who have been crying for and talking about another university have been talking gliby and that a new university will not provide the new teachers in time for the present crisis. Neither I nor others who have Been speaking on the subject, nor any organisation of a political party which I know, have been arguing for a new university for that purpose. They have been saying that in order to meet the next bulge, of which the Secretary of State spoke today, now is the time to make preparations; do not let us be facing a similar crisis in seven, eight or ten years' time.

Without spending very much time on this business of universities, which I recognise is not quite within the Estimate, nevertheless I want to return to the increasing numbers of young people coming from the senior secondary schools for whom there are no places. Because of the increasing percentages of fourth, fifth and sixth-year students staying on, because of the introduction of the O-level certificates and because of the intended link-up of the junior secondary school with further education. We shall need more teachers. I am one of those who take the view that there are teachers ingenious enough to find ways and means of teaching even in huts and old halls. If we have to allocate resources, they should go into increasing the number of teachers. If there is to be a priority, then in my view more should go on the supply of teachers and less on the schools.

The young people who are concerned also have a point of view which ought to be expressed—and which they express in their magazine called Sixth Form Opinion. I quote from the editorial: We, along with more eminent and influential publications, deplore the irresponsible absence of foresight in the Government's attitude towards the universities. These are no longer the finishing schools of an intellectual cream but a vital component of the preparation for the most responsible posts in industry, technology and government, as well as the growth of self-realisation. In addition to noting its national consequences, we censure a situation which subjects sixth-formers to over-work, narrow specialisation, continual anxiety arid, frequently, shattered hopes. That is the situation in many homes in Scotland where the young people, having stayed on at school because of pressure from parents encouraging them to do so, and encouragement from their schoolmasters, find that they are disappointed at the last moment in failing to gain admittance to universities. The Chancellor of St. Andrew's University, Sir Malcolm Knox, a week ago made a speech which was not too helpful to the provision of more university places. Perhaps the best answer to him is Mr. Andrew Knox, who was chairman of a Committee which in 1959 produced a report which in nearly every paragraph stressed the need for more teachers, but which refused to accept the logic of its own case by going on to talk of another university.

I support the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) about uncertificated teachers. Must we go on protesting about them, or will the Scottish Office do something to help them to take the necessary qualifications in the vacations, or in other periods?

There were two other proposals in the Knox Report which the Government did not accept. One of them—on bursaries —was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), but why does the Government draw the line at allowing retired teachers returning to the profession receiving both salary and pension? The Report said: For our part we cannot see what can be said at a time of crisis for a principle which permits full pay and full pension to be paid to a retired teacher if he enters some branch of the public service other than teaching, or takes employment with a commercial firm, or even if he returns to teach in a private school, but debars him from receiving full pay and full pension if he returns to teaching in a public school, where he is desperately needed. The report went on to say that if the Secretary of State refused to concede this, the Committee would find it hard to believe that he was seized of the crisis in Scottish education. There can be no stronger language than that.

The report also said that the problem facing education was to attract nearly 300 more graduates a year into teaching than were recruited before the war from a present university output in arts and pure science that was only 300 more for all purposes. Those figures are astonishing.

A recent report in the Glasgow Herald showed that in 1961 only two more Glasgow University honours graduates in arts entered teaching than in 1960; and that in 1961 only eight ordinary arts graduates from Glasgow University entered teaching over the previous year's figure. To be more precise, in 1960, 40 honours arts graduates from Glasgow University went in for teaching. In 1961, there were 42. From Glasgow University in 1960, 60 ordinary graduates in arts went into the teaching profession—46 per cent. of all the arts graduates in the university —but only 68, or 57 per cent. entered teaching in 1961. In 1960, 31–53 per cent. of Glasgow University's production of ordinary science graduates—went into teaching, but only 33, or 46 per cent., in 1961. The position in regard to science graduates is particularly bad. The attraction for those young men is industry, where they earn a salary at once, instead of having to go to a training college.

Scotland is often compared with Norway for size, population, etc., but what has happened in Norway? The Norwegian Government propose a ten-year educational programme. They want to double the capacity of their universities from a present 9,200 annually to 18,500 by 1970. It also proposes two new universities, one at Trondheim and the other at Tromso. The programme is estimated to cost £28 million. I believe that the Secretary of State is perturbed about the present situation, but what we as members of the Opposition have to ask is whether he is showing real concern or whether, to use the language that percolates among Under-Secretaries and civil servants, he is only making pleasant noises.

I am very pleased with the whole of Chapter 2 of the Report before us, which gives a review of the junior secondary school position. As I said in Standing Committee two or three years ago, those attending the junior secondary schools constitute two-thirds of the school population, but their problems and curricula are only occasionally mentioned. We recognise that teachers, administrators and the Department have shown their interest over the years, but the Report goes even further than I had expected.

What particularly pleases me is to find in the later paragraphs of the chapter a comment on the very problem that some of us raised two or three years ago, and which has been hinted at by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West: what is the aim of the junior secondary school? It was the absence of the attainment of something at the end of a three-year period that gave rise to the dislike of parents, on social or other grounds, of the junior secondary school. The Report hints that there is a need for linking up the last year of the junior secondary school course with vocational training.

It says that in the third year there should be a greater variety of courses, and more interest shown in them, and states that there should be greater emphasis on the needs of young people of 12, 13 and 14 years of age. Those young people are not children any more, and do not like to be looked on as children. The junior secondary school's task is to prepare these young people for adult life, and I note with satisfaction that the number of pupils in the junior secondary schools who complete the three-year course has risen from 39 per cent. to 55 per cent. Even this is not good enough. It is an improvement, but there is no reason why a percentage greater than 55 should not be involved, and I hope that headmasters will be encouraged to do something about this.

A mistake was made by the Government when we were discussing the recent Education Bill when they refused to accept an Opposition Amendment designed to create one school leaving date. Acceptance of it would have ensured that young people stayed at school longer. It is stated on page 36 of the Report: Nothing is more striking than the remarkable improvement effected in a school by its transfer from inadequate, uncomfortable and unattractive premises to one of the pleasant, well-designed, airy buildings which are now being provided". Hon. Members who have seen these new schools know what a difference they make to pupils and staff. It is not merely a question of improved accommodation for the pupils or, while on the subject, more pay for teachers. Their working conditions are important, too, and better buildings make for betterment all round.

Even in these schools the position is aggravated by the shortage of teachers and frequent staff changes. There is a lack of clarity of purpose in many schools, and that is borne out by the Report, which urges that greater attention should be paid to this subject and that a radical reappraisal should be made of the aims and methods which have in the past made the position difficult. It is stated on page 38 of the Report: One serious criticism which has frequently been directed at junior secondary education is that it leads nowhere 'since it lacks direct links with any form of further education corresponding to those which the senior secondary schools have established with university and other forms of higher education. The Report continues: This view is not entirely fair, since no education which sets out to provide a prepartion for living, as junior secondary education tries to do, can be thought of as a dead end. The Report goes on to give the reason why some of us have hitherto thought it to be unfair and states: …the whole question of the linkage of secondary with further education is at present being examined by a working party. That makes all the difference. If young people, in their final year, can get the impression that if they do well by the end of the term they will have a stepping stone towards further education, they will have greater interest in mathematics, science and the subjects associated with the jobs they will take up. The Report states on pages 54 and 55: The commonest form of fourth-year course has so far been the intensive commercial course, mainly followed by girls, and there are many such courses in secondary schools of different types. These serve a valuable purpose in acting as a bridge between school and employment… The Report points out that these courses round off education and help vocationally.

I hope that the Under-Secretary has taken note of the statement in the Report that there is much less provision of this kind for boys. It is pointed out that only a few counties, notably Fife and Stirling, have developed intensive courses in technical subjects. The Minister of Education, the Secretary of State, education authorities and the Crowther Report all stressed the importance of education, particularly for young people between 15 and 18. They stressed the importance of the links between primary and secondary school and between secondary school and universities in the case of the erudite young persons. However, they pointed out that the links between the secondary junior school and industry and further education just do not exist.

Until there is such a clear-cut line of progressive education we are going to have continued disabilities in trying to train our young people up to the standards we wish to see. Most people now believe that it is essential to think responsibility of the consequences of extending part-time education to 18 years of age. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has talked about the school leaving age being raised to 15 as if we had no right to do it. I would remind him that at the time of the First World War hon. Members of his party were talking about raising the leaving age to 15. They kept on talking about it through the years between the wars, though it was left to the Government which came into power after the Second World War to take the step.

The present Government have said that they are giving priority to raising the school leaving age to 16 but that promise is merely words because in the light of the present circumstances of teacher shortages and the inadequacy of existing school buildings either they mean what they say or they do not. I believe that they are not sincere and that their statements represent the fact that nothing will be done by them in respect of compulsory day release for young people in industry.

Further education has grown up in response to the demands of industry, but if industry complains about its cost we have a duty to remind industrialists that a great part of the cost involved is borne by taxpayers and ratepayers. I hope that the figures I propose to quote concerning day release attendances are correct. In Scotland between 1956 and 1960 the day release figures went up from 28,000 to 35,000—a 25 per cent. increase. No one denies that that increase took place but it is really only relative. If the figure is compared with the rest of the country it represents only about a half the rate of increase that has taken place in England and Wales and does not compare very well with some continental countries. Thus we have nothing to congratulate ourselves about in this respect.

In any case, is it not true that most of the increase has taken place for engineering apprentices and covers largely those over 18 years of age? The figures are not in respect of the young people we have mainly in mind; those between 15 and 18. Nevertheless, day release has been widely accepted by industry and could hardly be opposed at national level now. If technical education is an integral part of apprenticeship, it cannot be left as a voluntary act on the part of the apprentice.

My hon. Friends and I consider that the Government have a positive part to play and that compulsory day release is the only answer to the problem. We will not be fobbed off any longer. There is talk of raising the school leaving age to 16 but that is not the real issue. The important thing is how best we can compulsorily continue education. The Report mentions that this matter has been sent again to a Committee for further consideration. One thing that is certain is 'that responsibility should not be put on the young person himself or herself to ask for 'permission to attend day release classes because then we are faced with another difficulty: to whom does the young person apply? Is it to be youth officer, to the Ministry of Labour, or to the employer? It is much better that we should be given a straightforward answer that compulsory day release is to be inaugurated.

I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what progress is being made in the provision and building of technical colleges which are at present on the programme. Many schemes already exist between the employers and the trade unions in which compulsory day release, for example, is accepted. There are agreements in the building industry, the electrical contracting industry, the printing and the furniture industries, and in these cases we have no complaint to make. If compulsory day release is to be introduced, it should be introduced trade by trade or perhaps area by area, so that the local authorities would have due warning and time in which to make proper provision for young people going to such classes.

These are the points to which I should like some answer, and I hope that the Under-Secretary and the Scottish Office will continue along the lines outlined in the Report and try to cope with the urgent need for teachers for senior secondary schools.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Colin Thornton-Kemsley (North Angus and Mearns)

I apologise to the Committee in that for quite unforeseen and unavoidable reasons I was unable to be present for the opening of the debate. Although I have been in my place for an hour or two, and have heard the last half-dozen speeches, I was not able to hear them all and I apologise in advance if I refer to matters that have already been referred to and dealt with by other hon. Members.

May I, first, say a word about the fifth university, to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred in their speeches. As I understand the position, it is this. Over the next few years, because of the bulge, there will be increased pressure for university places. I do not think that anyone will seek to deny that or has sought to deny it. But a fifth university will not immediately help because, however quickly arrangements are made, we cannot possibly have a university ready in Scotland to cope with the problem of the bulge between now and 1970.

By the early 1970s the pressure will have died down. There will not be the same pressure as there will be between now and 1970. Later, it may increase again. That is what the Robbins Committee is looking into. The decision which will have to be made is a long term decision and one which may well set the pattern for Scottish education for the next 100 years. The Government are quite right not to commit themselves without the fullest advice.

In the meantime, we are very far from marking time in this matter. From now until 1967 grants to universities will be increased by over 50 per cent., and Scotland's share is not likely to be less. We are doubling the size of St. Andrew's University in a decade, and there are plans for the provision of 40,000 new places in higher education, of approximately degree standard, within the next ten years in Scottish universities, training colleges and central institutions. These are exciting and important possibilities which ought not to go unnoticed in this debate.

When the Conservative Government came to power in 1951 three major problems faced them in relation to Scottish education. There was a need to provide school places for the bulge, a need to recruit and train a sufficient number of teachers, and a need to facilitate and encourage secondary school education. In Scotland, about 36 per cent. of our school children attend places in senior secondary schools, as compared with between 20 and 25 per cent. south of the Border. That in itself is very encouraging, and I was glad to see from the Advisory Council's Report on the Transfer from Primary to Secondary Education, published last December, that few pupils capable of profiting from senior secondary courses have been denied admission to them.

I also want to refer to the other points —the provision of school places for the bulge, and of teachers for the greater number of children who have been coming along to be educated. In 1951–52 the average number of pupils on the registers of public and grant-aided schools in Scotland, to the nearest 100, was 808,300. There were then 32,600 certificated teachers. That meant that there was an average of 24.8 pupils to each certificated teacher.

Nine years later, in 1960–61, there were still 24.8 pupils—exactly the same number, to a decimal point—to each certificated teacher, although the number of pupils had risen to just under 900,000 and the number of certificated teachers had increased by over 3,600, to more than 36,000.

As Alice learnt from the Red Queen, in the topsy-turvy world in which we live, it is often necessary to run very fast in order to stay in the same place. In spite of the fact that recruitment is at a record level and that the number entering training colleges in 1960-61 was 40 per cent. higher than the figure of four years ago, we still need about 3,700 teachers in Scotland to replace the un-certificated teachers and the retired teachers over the age of 70, to fill vacancies, and to do away with oversize classes.

On the assumption that educational policy in Scotland will remain broadly unchanged, the Departmental Committee on the Supply of Teachers, in its Fourth Report, made this year, estimates that whereas the supply of un-certificated teachers in service will rise to over 43,000 by 1975, the demand by that date will approach 50,000, and that the total shortage on the existing basis will rise from about 5,000 in 1966 to between 6,000 and 7,000 in 1975. Of course, the need will be very much greater if there are any major changes in policy. If, for example, there should he an increase in the school-leaving age to 16, or if there should be the introduction of compulsory part-time further education, and if all classes were reduced to a maximum of 30 pupils, between 7,500 and 10,000 teachers would be required.

I welcome the campaign which was initiated last year to persuade married women who have been teachers to return to service as and when family commitments allow. It is one of the advantages, in a way, of the professions, some of them called sometimes ancillary to medicine—I mean the professions of the physiotherapist, of the occupational therapist. and that one which is so closely allied to educational work. that of the speech therapist—that the practitioners in those professions, when they are married, can return for part-time service. They can attend clinics; they can take pupils one morning a week, or a day a week, or two days a week, whatever may be required. Great benefit is derived from that.

I think that we ought to get used to the idea that teaching, too, can be part-time for the certificated married woman teacher who is able to come back to take a few subjects, or a class, occasionally, once or twice a week, something like that. I think we ought to get used to that idea and encourage it when we can. One welcomes also the grants under the special recruitment scheme.

We get so many ideas and values wrong; all too often the worth of the job is measured by the value of its emoluments. Teaching is a vocation, and one of the highest. That is a truism. I think that all of us— in this Committee, at any rate, because we would not be here if we were not interested in education— recognise that teaching is one of the finest vocations which there is. We ought to do all that we can— and this, again, has been said so often, and I have said it lots of times myself—to raise the status of the teacher. Emoluments are not everything.

We ought to do all we can to bring back the status of the teacher to the status of the dominie in Scotland in the old days, the leader of the village community, the finest man, very often, in a rural community, and, no doubt, in an urban community, too. The minister and the dominie were the men to whom people looked up, to whom they went for guidance and advice, by whom they themselves had been educated, brought up, taught so much of value in their lives. Perhaps one can hardly say it in this context, but I wish so often that there could be more schoolmasters, and schoolmistresses, too, receiving recognition in Honours Lists. It is not a big point, but it is important that services of the kind that they give should be fully recognised by the State on every possible occasion.

My final point relates to the non-eligibility of teachers for membership of local education authorities in Scotland, which has always seemed to me to be wrong. They have an inmportant contribution to make. After all, they are the people who know about these things and can advise the authorities. We do not debar farmers from county council work, nor contractors, even though they may be in receipt of contracts from the bodies of which they are members. There are certain rules about it, of course. They may not vote when the body is awarding them a contract. But they are not debarred.

We do not debar landowners, and in these days of great increases in value as result of the decisions of planning authorities landowners stand to gain a very great deal from being members of local authorities and having advance information about how things are going and being able to influence a decision in a certain direction. We do not debar council house tenants.

If we were to allow— I hope we may do so— teachers to sit on local education authorities, there should be guidance in a Departmental circular as to the matters on which they ought not to vote. That would be reasonable, and they would welcome guidance on that point. But until we admit these men and women to local education authorities, we shall be depriving ourselves unwisely of a source of expert knowledge of which we should do well to take advantage.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)

I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) in his last point about teacher representation on local education authorities. It would be a modest but very useful step in improving the status of the teaching profession. Teachers would make an immensely useful contribution to education committees. This works extremely well in many education authorities in England, and I can see no reason why it has not been applied a long time ago to Scottish education authorities as well. I hope that the Minister will take due note of what his hon. Friend has said.

On the hon. Gentleman's main point about the educational progress during the last few years and the fact that, despite it, we have not been able to reduce the shortage of teachers, I would merely make the point that there has been a tremendous increase in public expenditure on education in this country and in other countries over the years since the war, but the fact remains that, compared with our general level of prosperity and affluence and compared with what other competing countries are doing, the Government have not done nearly enough. The growing shortage of teachers is proof of the Government's failure to match the immensity of the challenge they face.

I want to concentrate attention on two narrow points, both of which are related to the shortage of teachers. The shortage of teachers is, above all, the dominating issue in educational problems at the present time. It is world-wide. It occurs in developed countries such as Britain, the United States and the countries of Europe and in acute form in the underdeveloped countries. Perhaps one of the disturbing features is that it does not seem to occur to anything like the same extent in the Communist countries, which is an urgent reason for our doing a great deal more.

I refer, first, to the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament for information about Scottish universities, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). I want to refer, secondly, to the need for more research into educational problems. As I have said, they are both related to the overriding problem of the shortage of teachers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill has mentioned the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, I remind the Minister that Section 30 of that Act states clearly that The University Court of each University shall make an annual report as to the statistics of attendance on the various classes, details of teaching staff, and such other information as the Commissioners, and, after the expiry of their powers, the Universities Committee, may from time to time determine …and the said reports shall be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and shall be laid by him before …Parliament, and an abstract thereof shall be published annually in such manner as the Commissioners shall determine. There have been many complaints in recent years from the House of Commons about the inadequacy of the information about what is happening inside the universities that is made available to Members of Parliament.

There have been complaints about the lack of accountability by the universities to the nation through Parliament. To listen to some of the pundits in the university world dealing with this problem one would think that to suggest that universities ought to make detailed returns to Parliament of what is going on inside their walls is a heretical procedure that infringes in some way the academic freedom of universities. The fact is, as I have quoted from Section 30 of the 1889 Act, that far from being a heresy this requirement to give details to Members of Parliament about what is happening in the university world is the law of the land, and it is a law that is being broken.

I believe that at the moment the Secretary of State for Scotland is breaking the law under Section 30 of that Act. I believe that the university courts are breaking it and that the University Grants Committee is breaking it. It is for this reason that I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said.

I have here copies of the minutes of the Commission set up under that Act, laying out in great detail the kind of information which had to be laid before Parliament about what was happening inside the universities. I have also in this massive volume, which I show to the Committee, the results of this requirement which were laid before Parliament right from 1889 until 1916. In these reports to Parliament under the Act hon. Members will find all the kind of details that Members of Parliament on both sides have been asking for repeatedly in recent years.

They will find details of the salaries paid to staff, of the individual staffing of every faculty, of the number of students attending classes and, exactly on the lines my hon. Friend asked for, not only all the passes but all the failures so that one can estimate the kind of wastage going on inside the universities. These details were provided to Parliament for many years until 1916 and then, as a temporary war-time economy measure, they were suspended during the First World War.

After the war, the University Grants Committee was set up in 1919 and in 1921 the then Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the university courts mentioning these reports about statistics and finances required under Section 30 of the 1899 Act. He said that … he understands from the University Grants Committee that these reports will henceforth be included in the Universities and Colleges Blue Book. I gather that this Blue Book is the "Returns" by the University Grants Committee made to us each year. In addition to the Returns the Secretary of State puts in the Library of the House certain further information about the Scottish universities. I have some of it here. It consists mainly of abstracts of accounts and some of the proceedings of meetings of the general council. But the information which the Secretary of State makes available under the duty laid upon him by the Act is not nearly enough, nor is it information of the kind required by the Statute.

It seems to me, reading these provisions, that, for any change to have been made in the details laid down by the Commissioners away back at the turn of the century, one would have had to have a decision of the Universities Committee of the Privy Council. My researches have not revealed that any such decision has ever been taken. My reading of the matter is that the obligation still lies on the Secretary of State and on the university courts to provide all these details which are exactly the kind of details for which we have been asking during recent years.

I do not expect an answer to these points tonight because I believe that this is the first time that the question has been raised, but I pass on the information I have to the Minister and I should be very grateful if he and his legal advisers would go into it and see whether, in fact, we have a right to have the very kind of information for which we have so often asked, only to be told that it is heretical to demand it from the Scottish universities.

The Government should make more money available for research into education problems. We all pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Council for Research in Education. The other day, the Minister told me, rather proudly, in a Written Answer that the allocation of Government funds to the Council had risen by 60 per cent. but he added that this meant an increase from £ 3,000 to £ 5,000. I was reminded of the story of George Bernard Shaw, who once claimed that the sales of his first novel had increased by 300 per cent. in a year because in the first year he had sold two copies and in the second year he had sold six. It is really pitiful that Scotland as a nation should be spending £ 5,000 a year on research into education problems, with a total education bill last year of about £ 100 million.

We ought to be spending a great deal more money on trying to find out how to make the most efficient use of the trained teachers we have. I believe that we face an absolute shortage of teachers during our lifetime. Even though a Labour Government in the future did all the things which the Conservative Government have failed to do during past years, we should still find ourselves short of the number of teachers we need not only nationally but internationally. We must see this in terms also of our international obligations to the underdeveloped countries of the world which are crying out for our help in providing trained teachers.

We ought to be doing systematic research into various new methods to make the maximum use of our desperately scarce trained teachers. I have already pressed on the Minister projects like an investigation into the use of teaching machines. These have produced very remarkable results in the teaching of mathematics in experiments within the Royal Air Force. Recruits using the teaching machines could pass the examinations with the same success as could conventionally trained pupils but with a saving of about 40 per cent. in time. I have mentioned the grouping of teachers in teaching teams in order to save scarce manpower. My right hon. Friend the Member for ClacKmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has suggested exploring the uses of television.

I speak as a layman in these matters. I do not presume to say that any one of these projects can by itself make a tremendous contribution. I just do not know. But the truth is that no one really knows. The work is not being done systematically to find out how far these new ideas could assist us in relieving the shortage of teachers.

During a debate in the House recently on the general subject of expenditure on education research, one of my hon. Friends mentioned that Government funds, provided more money for research into stickier glue and into whiter whitewash than we spend altogether on research into the more efficient use of the trained teachers which we have in our schools. This is an indefensible situation. In the old days, Scotland was regarded all over the world as a country which pioneered in education advance, as a country which was a leader in education. I want Scotland to return to those great traditions and become the sort of place to which people will look for pioneering new ideas in overcoming the world-wide shortage of teachers.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

Like the previous speaker, in view of the time factor, I shall require to curtail my remarks considerably, but I should like to say that we have covered a very comprehensive subject in the debate today. I am very glad that the Cinderella of modern education— junior secondary education— has been mentioned. While it is true to say that the school-leaving age was increased from 14 to 15, I do not believe that a concrete effort was made to ensure that that additional year would serve a fully useful purpose.

I think that today the Secretary of State for Scotland has a responsibility to make that year an extremely interesting year, because at the present moment our junior secondary students have nothing to show for their studies. The teachers have no certificated pupils to produce, and there is a gap in the junior secondary schools on that account. Until the Secretary of State wakes up from his slumbers and introduces into the junior secondary schools a Scottish certificate of education which indicates the attainments of these pupils in various subjects, there is not the slightest doubt that for a long time to come many children will do nothing other than mark time in the junior secondary schools in Scotland.

I speak as a member of a defaulters' sub-committee of an education authority, and I regret to say that a large percentage of the defaulting parents interviewed were parents of children who attend junior secondary schools. There is no end product in sight, nor any realisation of the value to the child of the last year at the junior secondary school— up to the age of 15. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary of State tonight seriously to consider among other things introducing a Scottish certificate for the junior secondary school pupils who attain a reasonable pass level in the course of their studies. Some authorities have had to take the initiative themselves and introduce a county certificate to their own school-leavers, some document to produce as a passport to industry, commerce or the Services, to indicate that they had achieved a certain standard of education while studying at a junior secondary school.

I wish now to pass to another very important point which I want the Under-Secretary of State to examine. What are we to do about the various promotion grading of pupils' attitudes of mind which we now have in neighbouring local authorities in Scotland? Some Lanarkshire children, for convenience, have been attending schools in Glasgow and are graded by the Glasgow head teacher and his staff. Whatever school they are graded for, it does not follow that when they return for their secondary education in Lanarkshire they are sent to such a school. I have an outstanding case of a key worker who came into Lanarkshire, whose child was graded for a senior secondary school in Glasgow, but, now the Child is in Lanarkshire, that authority decides that the child is not entitled to such a school, simply because of a geographical boundary— a railway bridge. Here is a case of a child being denied the right of an academic education, and I want the Secretary of State for Scotland tonight to assure me that he will reach some understanding between authorities which are at least contiguous to one another in order to eliminate this anomaly.

I was most pleased this evening to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referring to the Coatbridge Secondary School in her opening speech. She quoted the rector's report, which I have in my hand, but, in view of the time factor, I propose to forward it to the Secretary of State to give him the opportunity to study it. I believe he does not do enough studying, and that if he did he would be cognisant of the serious problem in this school. There is no assembly hall, and, indeed, when the certificate examinations are held, they are held in the gymnasium. The pupils— there are over 1,200 at the school— do their gymnastics in a playground. This is indicative of the disgraceful standard of accommodation which children tolerate in my part of Scotland.

After they have indulged in their physical education, they are brought back to the school, where, because of the Jack of hot water and decent toilet accommodation, they wash in baths in the playground. Those are the primitive conditions in which children are being schooled in my constituency, yet the Secretary of State tells us about the glowing achievement of himself, his Department and his party in education. It is disgraceful to listen to such palliatives when we realise that they are not accurate concerning my part of Lanarkshire.

At an ordinary level school in Airdrie, children occupy a school which was built originally for advanced division pupils with some temporary hutments that were condemned forty years ago still in occupation. Every day, 120 girls march a quarter of a mile and back five times to go off to another building elsewhere in the town to receive tuition in secondary subjects. That is some picture for the Secretary of State to boast about.

When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that this situation cannot continue indefinitely? The parents of these children are in open revolt. The Secretary of State knows that in the town of Coatbridge, St. Augustine's pupils had a school taken from them and were put into old halls so that the school would be used as a secondary school. As primary children, they are still being taught in halls. According to the present programme, under existing arrangements with the Scottish Education Department, there is no possibility of having a school until some time in the 1970s. This is a shocking state of affairs to which the children have to submit over the next ten years. In the neighbourhood of Shawhead our children have no school at all.

I appeal tonight to the Under-Secretary of State and to the Secretary of State, if it is possible to appeal we—are beginning to lose faith——

Mr. Willis

Has not my hon. Friend lost faith?

Mr. Dempsey

I am giving them this opportunity. If they do not respond to this cogent, understanding, persuasive and eloquent approach, I will lose faith. If they do not respond to the appeal, it is the parents in Coatbridge and Airdrie with whom they will have to deal and not the Member for the constituency. In view of the picture of Scottish education which the Secretary of State has painted— but which, incidentally, no artist would paint— I am hoping that from tonight onwards, a realistic attitude will be adopted, a realistic view taken and an objective analysis made of the educational situation, especially in Lanarkshire. I might be asking too much of the Under-Secretary of State— I do not know——

Mr. Willis

It is too much for this one, at any rate.

Mr. Dempsey

I am giving him an opportunity. If he appreciates the I.Q. element of promotions, for instance, I depend upon his I.Q. in analysing the situation objectively and taking the only feasible decision, namely, making an arrangement with the Lanarkshire education authority immediately to provide the scholastic accommodation which is essential if our children, like the children of other parts of Britain, are to be assured of their birthright of equality of opportunity in education.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay (Kirkcaldy Burghs)

As a "maiden speaker" at this Box, I feel greatly honoured at having the privilege of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on his admirable, informative and extremely lucid speech. The whole Committee was greatly impressed by his knowledge of the subject and the deep sincerity with which he expressed his views. I know that we shall all look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.

Today our debate on Scottish education has covered a much wider field than was the case last year, and in that respect possibly it has been more satisfactory than was the debate in 1961 which was held under the shadow of a teachers' strike. The Secretary of State for Scotland— I am sorry to see that the right hon. Gentleman is not present in the Chamber, at least not physically— at that time managed to achieve a state of affairs which had been considered virtually impossible to achieve. He caused the normally respectable and placid members of the teaching profession to resort to direct action. This arose from the possibility of their pro fession being diluted by the rejection of the salary proposals agreed by the National Joint Council.

Tonight I do not propose to enter into details about teachers' salaries, though they have an important bearing on the major problems in the sphere of education. The Secretary of State spoke at great length. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not object to that. But we do object to the short time which the right hon. Gentleman devoted to the problems of education in Scotland and particularly to the manner in which he skated over the problems which face us today without giving any indication of now he proposes to deal with them.

After this Government have been in office for more than ten years the right hon. Gentleman has appointed a series of committees and working parties to advise him on problems with which he should have dealt years ago. At the rate at which the teacher shortage is growing the right hon. Gentleman will soon find that there are no teachers left which he can appoint to his working parties. Much as I should like to, I dare not allow myself to be tempted by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) into discussing the provision of a fifth university. I will merely say that in my opinion both St. Andrew's University and Aberdeen University ought to be expanded at the greatest possible speed, and they could be were the Government willing to provide the necessary finance.

The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) suggested that the Government should accept 100 per cent. responsibility for teachers' salaries. I should be inclined to support such an idea, but only on the understanding that the Secretary of State did not make a corresponding reduction in the general grant to local authorities, as he did in respect of university grants, thus leaving the local authorities no better off.

In the present world economic circumstances, and to a much greater extent than ever in the past, the wealth of this country is created by the skill of the people. In other words, the prosperity of Britain depends on our ability to sell the skill of our people abroad and to use it effectively and efficiently at home. Failure to do this will result in a lower standard of living for the people. It is absolutey vital, therefore, that the skill of our people should be developed To the full if we are to maintain our present standards, let alone improve upon them.

In sharp contrast to pre-war days when university graduates were unable to secure posts either in the teaching profession or any other profession— when many worked as labourers and some remained unemployed— today we are faced with a great shortage of manpower in the teaching profession. With the tremendous advance of scientific knowledge which causes our civilisation to become more and more complex, the shortage of brain power becomes more acute with every year that passes. The problem is not confined to the teaching profession but is met in practically every profession. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not peculiar to Scotland. However, this is no defence for the right hon. Gentleman, or for the Government who permit a continual drainage of man-newer from Scotland to occur every year. The Government cannot deny that they are indifferent to this problem. Otherwise they would by now have implemented most of the valuable recommendations of the Knox Committee.

Considerable research has been going on in the sphere of education, but a great deal more is required. We do not really know yet, in relation to the various standards of attainment which are required, whether the pool of ability is sufficiently large to meet the present demand for educated manpower. It is well known that a considerable number of able pupils leave the secondary schools before gaining their leaving certificates. Many reasons are advanced for this, but undoubtedly a major reason is the lack of encouragement from parents to their children to stay at school and this is often because of the financial circumstances of the family.

If we are to make full use of the intellectual ability which is available, the Government must take steps to remove every disincentive to higher education. I must again remind the right hon. Gentleman of the letter sent to him by the Knox Committee on 8th May, 1957. So important did that Committee consider its views on the matter that it informed the right hon. Gentleman about them before it completed its interim report. I make no apology for reading extracts from the letter, because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been prepared at any time to accept the views of the Committee. It said At any early stage in its examination of the problems of lessening the shortage of teachers for secondary schools, the Advisory Council realised that, whatever other measures might be taken, none could be more important than those directed towards increasing the pool of educated manpower on which all the professions draw. It seems to the Council that greater efforts should be made to induce a larger proportion of able pupils to complete course leading to the award of the Scottish Leaving Certificate and also to encourage pupils qualified for higher education to proceed to it undebarred by financial obstacles. Paragraph 3 of the letter said: The council considers that the higher school bursaries should be more generous. There is no point in being generous at the university stage if bursaries are insufficient to allow able students to complete their secondary education. The recommendation of the Committee was that the rate for higher school bursaries should be increased from £40 in the fourth year and £50 in the fifth and subsequent years to £78 and £104 respectively. It is now five years since the recommendations were made, but we find that the respective figures are still only £45 and £60. The difference between the maximum bursary of £60 for a pupil in the last year at high school and the maximum grant of approximately £320 during the first year at university is far too great and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

The need for such university grants is unquestioned in the light of present-day costs, but because of the ridiculously low rate of bursaries for pupils at school many widowed mothers and parents in the lower income groups are compelled to deny their talented sons or daughters the opportunity of higher education. This position is even more farcical when it is realised that the present regulations rightly do not allow the son of a millionaire a high school bursary but permit him to enjoy a grant of £ 50 during his first year at a university. The Secretary of State looks puzzled, but if he examines his regulations carefully he will discover that that is a fact. In the interim many able pupils who are potential teachers will have drifted from school to jobs less rewarding both to themselves and to the community.

This is one of the many manifestations of the Government lack of purpose in dealing with the problem of increasing the pool of ability. I do not claim for a moment that increased bursaries would of themselves solve the problem, but they would be a major factor in easing the burden where there are several children of secondary school age in the same family. Investigations show that at present only about 6 per cent. of any age group attain the standard required for entry into a profession or go to university. The Government must really make a genuine attempt to raise this to 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. of any age group which it is estimated have the ability to achieve university standard. As is obvious from our debates today, education is beset with many difficulties, of which undoubtedly teacher shortage is, not only the basic but also the greatest single problem at present. Speaking in an education debate in the House in November, 1960, the right hon. Gentleman said, To some extent it may have been said that we have done too little, but the main charge has been that we have been too late. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must ask the question which every Government have to ask themselves: can one do everything which one wants to do simultaneously. The Government have done some remarkable things simultaneously in recent times. They increased the insurance contributions and the prescription charges and raised the price of welfare foods, at the same time as they saw fit to give £ 83 million away to the Surtax payers. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, as reported in the same column of HANSARD: From what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate and what I propose to say, it will be seen that the Government have: an intense sense of urgency about the education programme."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 773.] By no stretch of imagination can one accept that the Government have shown any sense of urgency about the problems of education and of the staffing problem in particular. The teacher crisis confronting Scotland today is like a creeping paralysis which becomes progressively worse. It is not something which has suddenly emerged from the blue. It was even foreseen by some Conservative Members nearly 10 years ago. They even mentioned it during the debates at that time in the House, and the Government cannot plead ignorance of the facts in their defence. Even the dullest crystal would have been unable to conceal from the crystal-gazer this critical shortage of teaching manpower. The Government must, therefore, stand condemned at the appalling lack of urgency which they have displayed in this matter.

Today Scottish education is facing its biggest crisis in living memory, and the way ahead under this Government, far from being clear, is so befogged that no one can tell the severity of the disaster which the next few years will bring. Before the last war, teaching was a profession offering salaries which were comparatively high in relation to other occupations, along with security in the midst of mass unemployment. Education authorities could then afford to pick and choose from among those qualified people who wished to become teachers.

In this post-war era, however, with its formidable demand for highly educated manpower, graduates leaving the university find themselves in a sellers' market. Employers vie with each other in offering good salaries and untaxed perquisites, which now make the job of teaching less attractive. It is at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman can do something of a practical nature to encourage more graduates into the profession. The Government ought to implement, for example, the recommendation of the Knox Committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred to and which is mentioned on page 13 of the interim report of the Knox Committee: All graduates and any others training for the Teacher's Special Certificate should receive during their period of professional training awards on the scale of those given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. As an alternative I suggest that the Government might examine the possibility of paying such graduates a salary a little less than that paid to a first-year probation teacher. Graduates have a natural and understandable resentment at having to rely in their early twenties on the generosity and in many cases the self-sacrifice of their parents, even with the present Government grants. This payment of a salary by the Government might in my opinion help to offset the present tempting offers being made by industrialists. I refer hon. Members to the last sentence of paragraph 17 of the White Paper which was issued in 1958: A supply of well-qualified teachers is a necessary condition of any educational advance, and the Government intend to maintain and intensify their efforts to obtain more teachers by all practicable means. As I say, those words were written in 1958, but so far there is precious little evidence of the Government's intention to implement them.

An examination of the training -methods adopted in the colleges of education might also prove useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North mentioned the question of the two terms as opposed to the three terms, hut I have received numerous complaints from graduates about the waste of time and the childish treatment they have experienced in the colleges. That might appear to be a minor point, but it is one of the many factors that militate against attracting more graduates into the colleges.

The Knox Committee made a very strong recommendation about the reentry of retired teachers into the profession. It said that during a period of staffing shortage, and subject to certain safeguards, any teacher who retires and re-enters the service should he paid full salary for the post in which he or she serves, and full pension for his or her past services. That recommendation was not adopted, and the right hon. Gentleman should be thoroughly ashamed of the paltry inducement offered to retired teachers to re-enter the profession; namely, £ 100 in lieu of full pension— which, incidentally, only attracted 284 teachers in 1961.

Let the Government show that they really mean business in dealing with this problem. If some principle prevents them from accepting the full recommendation of the Knox Committee, let them at least increase the gratuity from £100 to £400 or £500, so that, after allowing for tax, the teacher will have some additional recompense for his services, and not something like £1 a week, which is the total amount of his extra emoluments at present.

Whilst the overall shortage of teachers presents a great problem, there is a very serious aspect which requires immediate and resolute action, otherwise it will cause a collapse in our educational system which will have the most far-reaching and unfortunate repercussions on the economy. I refer to the shortage of mathematics and science teachers. The bleak prospect in this field is, perhaps, more fully realised when we are told that about 60 per cent. of honours graduate teachers of mathematics in Scotland are over 50 years of age, and that a considerable number of them will be due to retire in the next ten or fifteen years.

In my opinion, those in this category, must, in present circumstances, be regarded as key workers, and treated similarly to key workers in industry. In other words, additional financial inducements must be given to secure an increased flow of graduates to train as teachers in those subjects, instead of going into industry. Nobody denies that the 'problems of staffing our schools is one of extreme complexity, but it requires to be tackled much more energetically than the Government 'have so far done.

Chapter 5 of the Report on Education in Scotland, 1961, which deals with the supply of teachers, is a shameful exposure of the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to date to recruit sufficient teachers. I would suggest that, perhaps, the setting up of a manpower board, responsible for estimating the proportion of educated manpower required in each profession or industry; and for determining the standards necessary for admission to the various professions, might help to solve the problem. The board, if it were established, would also be required to consider and to advise on how best each profession could attract the appropriate proportion of manpower.

Since planning is no longer a distasteful word to hon. Members opposite, and since the Government have only recently created the National Economic Development Council, there appears to be a case for the creation of a similar board to deal with the national problem of the shortage of educated manpower. If we, as a country, fail to maintain the standards of education hitherto provided in our Scottish schools, our position as a country in the van of scientific and engineering progress will be taken by other countries, and the tragedy of lower living standards will be upon us.

I turn to another important aspect of the subject. I note that on page 9 of the Report it is indicated that there has been a slight reduction over the previous year in the number of oversized classes, a fact one is always pleased to welcome. There is, nonetheless, a long way to go before we can remove this handicap because, according to the Report, we still have 859 oversized primary classes, 52 of which contain more than 50 pupils.

The position in secondary departments is even worse, for we have 1,338 oversized classes, representing almost 10 per cent. of the total number of secondary classes in Scotland. Is this what the Government describe as equal educational opportunities? In the gloom of the staffing position and the lack of drive from the Government one almost despairs of ever having an improved situation.

Speaking in Swansea during the last General Election—at the time of the "never had it so good" phrase—the Prime Minister said: In education, as in so many fields, haste can be the enemy of speed. Let us never fall into the error in our schools of sacrificing quality for quantity. The Prime Minister's policy, with the large number of oversized classes in the country and also with part-time education, as we have heard about today, is causing us now to sacrifice not only quality but quantity.

In the event of the unexpected happening and there being an increased supply of teachers becoming available, that increased number should be used first of all to reduce the present maxima of primary and secondary classes, as indicated in the Schools Scotland Code. There is no point in our spending large sums of money building an elaborate superstructure on poor or shallow foundations. It is in the primary school where the child requires the maximum individual attention, yet it is at this most vital and painstaking stage that classes are often too large to enable this.

Page 12 of the Report gives a table showing the average number of pupils per certificated teacher over a number of years. In 1947 the figure was 25. 9 pupils per teacher. In the fourteen years up to 1961 there was an improvement of only 1, making the latest figure 24. 8 pupils per teacher. This table, however, is misleading because primary, secondary, local authority schools and private fee-paying schools are all grouped together. We should be given a more accurate picture of the various categories and I hope that this information will be given in more detail in future reports.

On this question of pupil-teacher ratio, I received a rather interesting reply from the right hon. Gentleman to a Question I put to him recently in connection with grant-aided, fee-paying schools. The reply gave some revealing figures and we learned— in the secondary departments of fee-paying schools— that in the group of Edinburgh Merchant Schools there were 15 pupils per teacher. Dundee High School had a ratio of 15 pupils per teacher, Dollar Academy had 13 pupils per teacher and in John Watson's School in Edinburgh the ratio was 10 pupils per teacher. These are very good pupil-teacher ratios, but to examine the position in the local authority schools I need not go further than Kirkcaldy High School where the figure is 22 pupils per teacher, taking into account the small classes at the top end of the secondary department. This is by no means the end of the disparity of treatment because when one looks at the grant position the right hon. Gentleman's Answer disclosed that Dundee High School received £55 per pupil, the Edinburgh group of Merchant Schools £72 and Dollar Academy £76—while local authority schools received only about £36 per pupil.

This special treatment of the so-called independent schools does not stop there. I believe it is known in education circles that, with regard to interviewing students for vacancies, education authorities have an understanding that they will not approach any student in training before the date intimated to them by the colleges. It is a fact, however, that before such a date has been intimated students in training who had applied to local education authorities had been interviewed and had accepted posts in grant-aided schools. These schools are thereby securing the cream of newly-trained teachers. There is undoubtedly a considerable drift of highly-qualified staff to these fee-paying schools where better facilities obtain as a result of the substantial grants received from the Government. While there may be a case for such subsidy, there is certainly no justification for more favourable treatment being given by the Government to these institutions than to local authority schools. No wonder the waiting lists for fee-paying schools in Scotland are longer now than they have ever been. How can the Government claim that equal educational opportunity is being provided for all children in Scotland when such injustice obtains under the present system?

I come to the question of technical education. Despite the legitimate criticisms which have been levelled against the provision of technical education in England, we in Scotland are still falling far behind. There appears to be no sense of urgency about erecting technical buildings, despite what the right hon. Gentleman quoted this afternoon in relation to the building programme. In reply to a Question last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter for the local education authorities. But if the authorities decide just to jog along nobody seems to care. A comparison of English and Scottish figures for day-release is most illuminating. So far the Government have done nothing to find out how many small firms in Scotland can combine to ensure adequate technical training for their apprentices. One practical step would be for the Secretary of State to fix a date for compulsory day-release, even though it may he one or two years ahead, and call upon local authorities to present schemes for implementing this decision.

This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech to the fact that he has accepted the recommendation of the Committee for compulsory registration. This, in my opinion, is only toying with the problem. The present position in which the apprentice has to seek the goodwill of his employer in order to attend school ought not to be allowed to continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) made some detailed references to this particular aspect. Last year, the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council circularised 9,000 firms about the provisions made for their apprentices and only 600 replied out of that 9,000. This shows the scant respon sibility that the firms are accepting in this matter. The Government must therefore realise that they cannot toy with this important problem of education any longer. To ensure the technical education of these thousands of young people is in fact a responsibility of the Government which cannot be left to the whim of any private individual. The need is, therefore, for effective Government action.

I would ask what is the Government policy with regard to day release. When do they propose to strengthen the hands of the local education authorities which have been pioneering in this field. Do the Government have a plan and, if not, when are they going to produce one? Why do not the Government for once take the educational authorities into their confidence and help them to plan their future technical programme? Is it because the Government have no policy or, if they do have a policy, is it because it is too dependent on election strategy? The shadow of teacher shortage also darkens the technical education scene. This problem could be relieved if industry were encouraged to co-operate and release employees on a part-time basis for instructional purposes.

Paragraph 8 of the White Paper, Education in Scotland— The Next Step, sates: If every pupil is to be able to pursue to the limit of his capacity an education suited to his individual needs, the most urgent requirement, amongst other things, would be buildings and equipment that satisfy modern standards. How that requirement is to be achieved with the stop-and-go building programme of the Government is difficult to understand. First a circular is issued urging education authorities to prepare modernisation schemes, and then, as soon as the schemes are prepared, another circular is issued curtailing the programme due to the Chancellor's restriction on capital investment. So it goes on, leaving local authorities in a state of complete bewilderment.

This afternoon the Secretary of State said that in 1961 £13¾ million had been spent on building, but if we turn to page 128 of the Report we find that 422 fewer classrooms and 17,750 fewer school places were provided in 1961 than in 1958. Is this an indication of stepping up the programme?

In a memorandum to the Estimates Committee in the last Session, the right hon. Gentleman's Department stated that nearly 1,200 average-sized schools in Scotland were more than 80 years old and that some were more than 100 years old. But the most disturbing feature of the evidence given to the Estimates Committee was that it would take at least 20 years to complete the programme of modernisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Aidrie (Mr. Dempsey) made some very pointed remarks on this subject earlier this evening, and I know that shocking conditions still prevail in a number of old schools in my area, where children have to use outside toilets of a primitive character, and where the staffroom accommodation is virtually nonexistent. In this age of speed and modern techniques nothing could stop a Government, determined to provide the finance, from removing such deplorable conditions, for both pupils and staff, well within the twenty years' period.

One startling admission is given in the evidence on page 293 of the Eighth Report of the Estimates Committee on School Building. One of the officers of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, in reply to a question by the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, said: All I can say is that in order to get the building programmes submitted to us by education authorities within the limits of our investment programme, it is necessary to divide them by two and that process has been going on for quite a number of years. Here we have, in all its nakedness, the supreme confession of the browbeating tactics of the right hon. Gentleman's Department.

I am not very impressed by the arguments advanced that local authorities' proposals were cut in two in order to correspond with the technical and building facilities available. Once again the Government have failed miserably, in determining their priorities, by allowing such building resources to be dissipated over the private sector, in providing such buildings as petrol stations, to the detriment of the more urgent school building programme. It is obvious from the evidence that I have just quoted that, as usual, finance is the bogyman, despite the Tory promise made in the 1959 election, when the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd)—then Minister of Education— said,on 22nd September: The Conservative programme will mean a tremendous enlargement of educational opportunities. Every boy and every girl, whatever school he or she attends, will have exactly the same opportunity to carry his education as far as his abilities and perseverence will take him. It will also mean that within four or five years we shall have an education system which will be producing in vastly increasing numbers the skilled men and women needed to meet the challenge of the second Industrial Revolution. That is but one of the formidable number of Tory election promises which have not been kept. Hon. Members on this side of the House realise the inherent difficulties in education, and we would be the last to minimise them, but we also recognise the lamentable weakness of the Government's attempt to safeguard the progress of education in Scotland.

I regret that time does not permit me to deal in more detail with other aspects of the educational scene. I therefore briefly refer to the need for providing residential schools for pupils of ability, entrance to be determined by the pupil's scholastic ability and not by the contents of the parental purse. Secondly, I commend for consideration, as a new pattern for Scotland, the experiment which is proving so successful in certain quarters, of setting up junior high schools to which all children in the area are promoted from primary schools. Then, after two years, those capable of specialising proceed to the normal high school. This process eliminates many of the objections to the present system of segregation at the age of 12 and provides a much easier method of transfer from one course to another.

In conclusion, I would say that unless we plan our resources of educated manpower purposefully and are prepared to accept the disciplines which are necessary we shall not be able to meet the challenge of Japan, of Russia, of America. As the years go by we are seen to be languishing behind, trying all the time to catch up with the others because the Government have not acted soon enough. We in Scotland have fallen behind in the education race because the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to read intelligently the lessons of the twentieth century. The Government ought to show us by resolute action, and not by pious words, that they regard the economic survival of this country of ours as being largely dependent on a first-class education system capable of holding its own with that of any nation in the world.

The ruinous teacher recruitment policy of the Government, their failure to tackle the problem of staffing, their failure to modernise and to replace timously old and primitive school buildings, and, above all, the Government's failure to provide equality of opportunity and to give facilities to enable our children to develop their talents to the full, compel us tonight to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the Government's record in Scotland by dividing the Committee at the end of the debate. In present circumstances, education in Scotland is a sham and equality of opportunity a myth. I am convinced that every Member of the Committee who is concerned about the future of Scottish education will support us in the Division Lobby tonight.

9.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White)

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) on what is, I believe, his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He made a very vigorous speech, ending with the best sort of peroration to justify the vote which hon. Members opposite are determined to nave this evening. He made some quite effective play with various quotations from ten years ago.

Mr. Willis

Two years ago.

Mr. Brooman-White

Ten years ago.

I prefer to refer to the quotations of ten years ago, because that seems quite a reasonable amount of time for events to occur which would enable me to issue a small warning to the hon. Member— that quotations may 'be thrown back at him. It may be that in about that period of time he will find himself regretting that he made some of the radical proposals he did this evening. He also made some very interesting suggestions.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

There is no need for the Under-Secretary to worry. Nobody will ever quote any of his speeches.

Mr. Brooman-White

That will be highly satisfactory.

I may come back later to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I have a good deal to say, and though it may be, perhaps, an untidy performance, to come back to his points at the end, in view of the time, and of what I have to say, that will, perhaps, be the best way to deal with them. As the hon. Member himself said, this debate has ranged rather wider than usual and, though that is satisfactory, it does make it rather more difficult satisfactorily to reply to the debate.

Before I move on to more general subjects I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) upon a most interesting maiden speech, and I should also like to add my own feeling, which, I am sure, is that of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to what he said about his predecessor. I served opposite his predecessor as a Scottish Whip for some time. We all remember him with the deepest personal respect and friendship.

The hon. Member for West Lothian in previous years has, as we all know, made very substantial contributions to new and progressive thinking on Scottish education, and he made clear this evening that in his new role he will be able to continue to contribute to Scottish education. We shall welcome his future contributions even though when the inhibitions of a maiden speech are removed from him the Government may well find a searching and well-informed critic as well as a source of profound comment on educational topics.

The speeches made in the debate and the various points raised can be grouped broadly under four main headings, and I will so deal with them: first, buildings; secondly, teachers, and, above all, the problems of teacher shortage; thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, 'because they are the object of the whole operation, the pupils and the question of how they are handled in the school and the problem of transfer, raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison); and, finally, what happens to the pupils when they leave school and move on into the sphere of further education, technical training and such-like matters, referred to in a number of speeches.

To deal, first, with school building, in his opening speech my right hon. Friend gave figures relating to the progress which has been made, and I shall not take up time with any more figures. The hon. Lady referred to the "stop and go" programme. The fact remains that year after year the amount of work done has steadily increased. Very substantial progress is being made. Nothing can detract from that, though we fully recognise that, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) said, progress elsewhere is little solace to those schools where replacement or modernisation needs to be carried out.

The hon. Gentleman attempted to draw me into a discussion of the Lanarkshire programme. As a Lanarkshire Member, I should deeply like to follow him, but time will not permit. However, the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know that the Lanarkshire position is complicated by various factors not all of which can rightly be laid at the door of the Government.

Miss Herbison

It is not only the position in Lanarkshire.

Mr. Brooman-White

But there is a complicating factor in Lanarkshire. I have said that we appreciate the difficulties in respect of school building.

I would add one thing to what my right hon. Friend said. The present buildings are a great advance on previous ones. Some of 'their features have been criticised this evening. This is inevitable and some of the criticism is no doubt justified, but whatever may be felt in our own country, looking at ourselves as others see us, it is accepted in most countries now that the schools being built in Britain today are among the best in the world both in design for efficient use and in value for money.

To substantiate that fact, the British school which was exhibited at the International Architectural Exhibition at Milan in 1960 was one of the main focuses of interest and favourable com ment. We have also had some welcome commendation from within this House. In its recent Report on educational building, the Estimates Committee commented that schools today, though smaller in total area, are larger in teaching area and 50 per cent. cheaper in real terms than in 1949.

But, of course, the drive for improvement has to go on. One possible means of getting still better value for money is the recommendation by the Estimates Committee that the educational departments should give further publicity to the building and contracting methods adopted under the C.L.A.S.P. programme — the consortium arrangements. We have mentioned this before in Scotland, but we are renewing our discussions on this point. Subsequent to the Report of the Estimates Committee, the Minister of State has had two meetings with education authorities, one in Edinburgh and one in Inverness, in which the advantages of the C.L.A.S.P. system and cooperation by local authorities in school buildings were explained. Though a decision on this matter is for the local authorities, there are considerable possibilities in going further in this field.

As for teacher shortages, again, I will not repeat the figures, but I can assure the hon. Lady, who said that even the Government felt anxiety about them, that indeed we feel deep anxiety, as everyone who is concerned with the problem must and does feel. The hon. Lady said that we needed a crash programme. We certainly welcome the wide variety of constructive ideas which she and other hon. Members have put forward. The wide range of suggestions made, is very much in keeping with the spirit with which the Scottish Office and teachers' organisations and everyone concerned is approaching the problem.

As hon. Members know, the E.I.S. has set up an ad hoc committee to consider suggestions and possibilities and my right hon. Friend has had discussions with teachers' organisations. Everyone is searching for ideas to further stimulate recruitment. I say "further stimulate" because we are all well aware that measures taken up to now have led to a substantial increase in recruitment. This is fully appreciated inside this Committee and I hope that it is appreciated outside.

The problem is not that recruitment has been lagging. It has been expanding, but there have been a certain number of losses because of the earlier marriage age and other factors which have reduced the number of teachers available. It is generally accepted that there is not one point of attack at which we are likely to make a sensational breakthrough on this problem and that we must try to gain what ground we can all along the front.

I was interested in the hon. Lady's views on the controversial point about the money to be spent on graduates in training colleges, about the part-time employment of retired teachers, and about university evening classes. We would not be loath to see headway made on proposals of this kind, but, clearly, in this and many other matters it is a question of securing general agreement with other people who have great responsibilities in them.

As is so often the case with the Opposition, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, in criticising my right hon. Friend's activities, was unable to make up his mind whether my right hon. Friend was too dilatory or too Draconian. At one moment he accused him of not making up his mind and at the next of bullying and relentlessly imposing his will on local authorities. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite must make up their minds on the rô le in which they wish to cast my right hon. Friend before they criticise him.

I have not the time to discuss the whole wide range of suggestions which have been made in the debate. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North was good enough to mention the degree of success achieved in attracting married women back to the teaching profession. These have been the result of strenuous efforts made by the Department in extensive advertising in the newspapers and in other directions. The same applies to the special recruitment scheme for bringing recruits from outside the teaching profession and financing them while they are acquiring the necessary qualifications to enter the profession.

Perhaps it is not sufficiently widely appreciated that for a considerable number of years the Department has arranged for teams of practising teachers to visit universities and other major institutions to interest students in teaching as a profession. We deeply appreciate the efforts which the teachers have made in carrying out canvassing of that kind. We have had many reports of the competence which they have shown in bringing in recruits in that way and in meeting on level terms representatives of industry who are doing the same thing. The high percentage of graduates continuing to enter the teaching profession is a fairly good illustration of the way in which teachers going out and fighting for the interests of their own profession in this way have been very successful.

The right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) raised a point in this connection about additional aid or inducements to mature people to be trained as teachers. One factor which will help us considerably is the increase in bursaries. Also, there is the special course now being organised at Jordanhill which may lead to the way to the extension of similar arrangements whereby somebody coming into teaching from outside at a later age will serve only four months before going on to earn a salary. We think that this should be very helpful.

Many hon. Members have spoken about the pool of manpower available. It is generally accepted that we have been getting a satisfactory proportion of the graduates available, and, logically, hon. Members have turned their minds to consider what more can be done to increase the number of graduates from which we may draw a similar or, we hope, better proportion. I do not wish to embark on a discussion of the university expansion programme, but it will be appreciated that, what-every may be the views of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and others about a new university, or about the adequacy of the programme as a whole, we are committed to a substantial increase in the Scottish university programme over the forthcoming years, and this in itself will make a worthwhile contribution.

We are committed, also, to a very substantial programme of building in the educational colleges. I have no time to go through the long list of extensions — hon. Members will know about them already— Jordanhill, Moray House, Notre Dame, Dunfermline, and the plans at Hamilton and elsewhere. There is a substantial improvement going on.

There have been references to teaching aids, the various ways in which assistance can be given to the teacher. I agree with the hon. Member for Govan when he says that the teaching aid could not replace the teacher, but, nevertheless, the teaching aid may be capable of assisting him substantially and making it possible for the personal interest of the teacher to be devoted to individual cases by taking some of the routine burden off his shoulders.

We have been making increasing use of film strips and background material. Some hon. Members will have seen the extremely interesting report recently issued by the Scottish Liaison Committee for Visual Aids in Education. We have been going into its recommendations, and we fully endorse what the Report says about the part which visual aids can play in teaching in future. Also, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has been exhorting us to do, we have been in close touch with the experiments with teaching machines carried out in Sheffield, Aberdeen and elsewhere.

During the debate, we have discussed the handling of the pupils in the schools, and I shall take up briefly the comments of several hon. Members who suggested that the present junior secondary course tends to peter out in an unsatisfactory way and asked whether some inducement could be given in the form of an examination at the end of the course. This is one of the subjects which the committee on links between the schools and further education has been studying and we shall have its report about that. It is not a simple matter. There is a strong school of thought which takes the view that the establishment of an examination at that level would tend to formalise junior education too rigidly. Another school of thought, as does the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, takes a different view. This is one of the matters we are considering.

I hope that hon. Members will not say that we are investigating many things and taking no action. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech, substantial changes and improvements have been made in the examination structure as the result of previous studies and reports. This is a continuing process. We have had a number of studies and inquiries before, we have taken action on them and we are continuing to do so. If the hon. Member thinks that we have done nothing, what about the introduction of the ordinary grade certificate in this field alone? Again, following our White Paper, we have taken action and new arrangements have been made to make available and to extend facilities for technical education over a wide range and to try to adapt these facilities at various levels so that each child can advance to his objective, which is the limit of his own capability.

May I now try to pull together some of the main threads of the debate? The hon. Lady asked me about solutions. We have made substantial progress with the problem, and we are working together with the teachers' organisations. Whatever may be said about the type of solution we ought at any given moment to adapt for the next stage of our advance, I do not think that there is much disagreement about the main objective. The main objective is to try to adapt the traditional system, of which we have all been justifiably proud for many generations in Scotland, to meet greater strains than ever before, and adapt what was largely a craft system to meet the new pressure of numbers. Today it is becoming something very much like a mass-production system, and has to deal with the increase in quantity without sacrificing quality. This will make tremendous demands on the adaptability and inventiveness of our teachers.

Whatever is said on the whole range of this problem, we come back to this fact, that we are making, and will continue to make, increasing demands on the efforts, ingenuity and inventiveness of our teachers. I do not like borrowing phrases from Khrushchev, but one thing is essential if we are to carry out and achieve the tasks which are being set. One phrase which I saw over the weekend seemed to me very apposite. The essential thing is that there should not be among our teachers any trace of what he calls a "decay" in the sense of overriding purpose. This has not occurred among our teaching profession, and we do not expect it to occur. We believe that the various measure under discussion now will progressively continue with their assistance and co-operation to contribute to the advance which has been and is being made and which, in comparison with other countries, will maintain Scotland in a highly satisfactory position in the educational world.

Miss Herbison

The performance of both Ministers has convinced us that our decision to vote was completely right. Therefore, I beg to move that Item Class III, Vote 2B (Scottish Home and Health Department (Revised Estimate)), be reduced by £5.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 211.

Division No. 242.] AYES 9.59 p.m.
Abse, Leo Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Ainsley, William Hannan, William Peart, Frederick
Albu, Austen Harper, Joseph Pentland, Norman
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hayman, F. H Prentice, R. E.
Awbery, Stan Healey, Denis Proctor, W. T.
Bacon, Miss Alice Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis) Rankin, John
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Redhead, E. C
Beaney, Alan Hill, J. (Midlothian) Reid, William
Bence, Cyril Hilton, A. V Reynolds, G. W.
Blackburn, F. Holman, Percy Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Blyton, William Houghton, Douglas Robertson, John (Paisley)
Boardman, H. Hoy, James H. Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Ross, William
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics. S.W.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Short, Edward
Bowles, Frank Hunter, A. E. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Hynd, H. (Accrington) Skeffington, Arthur
Brockway, A. Penner Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Small, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Chapman, Donald Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Sorensen R. W
Cliffe, Michael Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Soskice Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Spriggs Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Kelley, Richard Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cronin, John Kenyon, Clifford Stonhouse, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Stones, William
Dalyell, Tam Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Stones, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Loughlin, Charles Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lubbock, Eric Swain, Thomas
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Taverne, D.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) MacColl, James Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dempsey, James MacDermot, Niall Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Diamond, John McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Thornton, Ernest
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles) Thorpe, Jeremy
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Wade, Donald
Edelman, Maurice Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Manuel, Archie Warbey, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mapp, Charles Weitzman, David
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Marsh, Richard Wells, William (Walsall, N)
Fernyhough, E. Mason, Roy Wilkins, W. A.
Finch, Harold Milne, Edward Willey, Frederick
Fitch, Alan Mitchison, C. R Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Moody, A. S. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Forman, J. C Morris, John Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moyle, Arthur Winterbottom, R. E
Galpern, Sir Myer Neal, Harold Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Ginsburg, David Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.) Woof, Robert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C Oswald, Thomas Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Gourlay, Harry Owen, Will
Grey, Charles Padley, W. E TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly) Parker, John Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Parkin, B. T Mr. Lawson.
Agnew, Sir Peter Berkeley, Humphry Brewis, John
Alien, Robert (Paddington, S.) Bitten, John Brooman-White, R
Atkins, Humphrey Biggs-Davison, John Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Balniel, Lord Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Barber, Anthony Black, Sir Cyril Buck, Antony
Barlow, Sir John Bossom, Clive Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Barter, John Box, Donald Burden, F. A
Batsford, Brian Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Boyle, Sir Edward Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Braine, Bernard Chataway, Christopher
Chichester-Clark, R Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hobson, Sir John Pitt, Miss Edith
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Holland, Philip Pott, Percivall
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hollingworth, John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Cleaver, Leonard Hornby, R. P Prior, J. M. L
Cole, Norman Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Collard, Richard Hughes-Young, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Cooke, Robert Hulbert, Sir Norman Quennell, Miss J. M.
Cooper, A. E Iremonger, T. L. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Rees, Hugh
Corfield, F. V James, David Renton, David
Costain, A. P Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Coulson, Michael Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridsdale, Julian
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Joseph, Sir Keith Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Kaberry, Sir Donald Roots, William
Crowder, F. P Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Dalkeith, Earl of Kerr, Sir Hamilton Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surry)
Deedes, W. F. Kimball, Marcus Scott-Hopkins, James
de Ferranti, Basil Kirk, Peter Sharpies, Richard
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kitson, Timothy Shaw, M.
Doughty, Charles Leburn, Gilmour Skeet, T. H. H
Drayson, G. B Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
du Cann, Edward Lilley, F. J. P Smithers, Peter
Duncan, Sir James Lindsay, Sir Martin Smyth, Rt. Hon, Brig. Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Linstead, Sir Hugh Spearman Sir Alexander
Emery, Peter Longbottom, Charles Speir, Rupert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Longden, Gilbert Storey, Sir Samuel
Farey-Jones, F. W Loveys, Walter H Studholme, Sir Henry
Farr, John Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Summers, Sir Spencer
Finlay, Graeme Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Talbot, John E.
Fisher, Nigel McLaren, Martin Tapsell, Peter
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Foster, John Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute& N.Ayrs.) Taylor, W. J. (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.) Temple, John M.
Freeth, Denzil McMaster, Stanley R Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Gammans, Lady Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Gilmour, Sir John Marshall, Douglas Tweedsmuir, Lady
Glover, Sir Douglas Marten, Nell Van Straubenzee, W. R.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Vane, W. M. F
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Mawby, Ray Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir
Cower, Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J Vickers, Miss Joan
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C Wakefield, Sir Waved
Green, Alan Mills, Stratton Walder, David
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. More, Jasper (Ludlow) Walker, Peter
Gurden, Harold Mott-Radcliffe, Sir Charles Ward, Dame Irene
Hall, John (Wycombe) Nabarro, Gerald Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Neave, Airey Whitelaw, William
Hare, Rt. Hon. John Nicholls, Sir Harmar Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Harris, Reader (Heston) Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Wise, A. R
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Osborn, John (Hallam) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Page, Graham (Crosby) Woodnutt, Mark
Hastings, Stephen Page, John (Harrow, West) Woollam, John
Hay, John Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Worsley, Marcus
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hendry, Forbes Peyton, John Mr. Noble and
Hiley, Joseph Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Mr. Gordon Campbell.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Pike, Miss Mervyn

Original Question again proposed.

The Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North)


It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.