HC Deb 19 December 1963 vol 686 cc1425-7
23. Mr. Lubbock

asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a further statement on the raising of the school leaving age from 15 to 16 and also on the other recommendations of the Newsom Committee.

30. Mrs. White

asked the Minister of Education if he will now announce the Government's intentions concerning the recommendation of the Crowther and Newsom Reports that the age of school leaving be raised to 16 years.

37. Mr. Willey

asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the raising of the school leaving age.

Sir E. Boyle

I intend to make a statement on the raising of the school leaving age during the current Session. With regard to the second part of his Question, I would refer the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 5th December.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the longer he delays making an announcement the more difficult it will be? Provision has to be made for the additional teachers who will be required and for the variations in capital expenditure programmes of local education authorities. Is he further aware that, if he does not accept the recommendation of the Newsom Committee, it will be very much more difficult to im- plement later on, because the minimum number of children entering secondary schools will be in 1965?

Sir E. Boyle

Of course, I recognise the great importance of this matter. I have quite deliberately not prejudged this in the school building programmes I have announced for the future. We are proceeding as fast as we can in order to make up the teacher supply.

Mrs. White

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain his reasons for not being able to make a statement now? This Session may, conceivably, end in March. What new facts are likely to be drawn to his attention between now and then?

Sir E. Boyle

As the hon. Lady knows, evidence relevant to this matter has come in quite recently. For example, no one can deny that the Kelsall Report is really relevant. I repeat that I shall make a statement in the current Session.

Mr. Willey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now four years since the Crowther Committee said that a statement on this should be made? Is he aware that, for the past three or four years, I have been saying that a statement will be made on the eve of the General Election? Does this mean that the General Election has been postponed from March? Does not he realise that in any case the statement will still prove useless electorally?

Sir E. Boyle

I had a feeling that we would get on to the subject of the General Election with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that in 1960, when we debated Crowther, my predecessor accepted this recommendation in principle. There is no dispute that this is a good thing to do. But I must take account of the needs of, and my responsibility for, the education service as a whole. Here, one must bear in mind the teacher supply aspect. I repeat that I will fulfil my pledge, many times given, to announce the Government's policy during the present Session.

Mr. Lubbock

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question? Does not he realise that, if this decision is delayed beyond 1965, the problem of teacher supply and of capital expenditure in schools will be very much more acute?

Sir E. Boyle

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "beyond 1965".

Mr. Lubbock

Entry.

Sir E. Boyle

No one has suggested that this could take place in 1965. I assure the House that I accept the urgency of the matter and will make a statement as soon as I can.