SCHOOL BUILDING AND TEACHER SHORTAGE

HC Deb 26 March 1963 vol 674 cc1141-271

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That this House regrets the further cuts in the school building programmes and the failure to take adequate steps to recruit sufficient teachers. This is not a debate about whether there should be an increase in our expenditure on education—the Government could not avoid that even if they wished to, and it is no part of my case to suggest it. We have only to appreciate that there are 1 million more children in our schools now than there were ten years ago and that there will be 1½ million more in the schools in ten years' time than there are now to realise that it is not only a question of numbers, but of standards, demands and needs, and that increasing expenditure on education is necessary for our national survival. Increased expenditure is not the issue: the issue is whether we are increasing it at a sufficient pace and whether we are devoting our resources to the right priorities.

No Tory Minister of Education has had such an opportunity as the right hon. Gentleman. What would Lord Eccles have given for the right hon. Gentleman's opportunities? That is a rhetorical question, because we know that that is why Lord Eccles went. But the right hon. Gentleman took office within sight of a General Election, and everyone knows that a Tory Cabinet turns a more favourable ear to education when there is a General Election in the offing. If I were to call the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd) dynamic, he would probably challenge me to repeat it outside the House, but even the right hon. Gentleman, in the corresponding period before the 1959 General Election, introduced his White Paper, his five-year plan and his new drive for school building. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister has an even greater opportunity, because this is education year, the year when the campaign for education is arousing interest throughout the country.

Surely, this was the Minister's opportunity. Even the Economist blurted out the other day: Sir Edward Boyle should already be twisting the Treasury's arm. What a hope! The right hon. Gentleman is the Treasury's Trojan horse at Curzon Street—that is why he is there. Only a year ago, in this House, he complacently tried to justify the completely unjustifiable. He tried to justify what the vice—chancellors—all of them—found profoundly disturbing" and described as devastating—the absolutely unprecedented rejection by the Government and the Treasury of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. That rejection was, at any rate, made on grounds of economy, but now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is removing the ravages of his predecessor and boosting public expenditure what is the right hon. Gentleman doing?

The Minister of Education has the two major responsibilities of promoting school building and providing an adequate supply of teachers. What is he doing? He is cutting back the building programmes and treating the teaching profession with the contempt which the Government reserves for the academic profession. The moral is that if we have a Tory Government we cannot afford to have a weak Minister of Education—and that is not an exaggeration by a politician or an expression of political bias.

I could call in aid many examples, but let me call in aid Education, which no one can allege is a party political publication. It is, in fact, the official organ of the Association of Education Committees. In its article on the building programme, that journal began: Is Sir Edward Boyle really Lady Horsbrugh in disguise? His actively misleading treatment of the building programme suggests that, as during the régime of his noble forerunner, there is a substantial cut taking place under the smokescreen of deceptive statistics about approvals and starts. As I have said, his noble forerunner was acting under the duress of economic crisis, but the article concludes: This is a shabby little episode made the more shabby by the shifty way in which it has been put across. If Sir Edward cares for his image he must not put himself forward as Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd and Lady Horsbrugh rolled into one. Fighting for the building programme is the Minister's first duty. If he fails so badly when capital spending is rising, how will he do when the cold wind blows? The position of school building is simply that, in spite of the new schools built since the war. a large proportion of our children are enjoying their schooling, eighteen years after the end of the war, in appalling conditions. Even today there are in use 100 schools which were blacklisted and condemned as long ago as 1921.

The recent report on a survey made by the National Union of Teachers shows that one in seven of primary schools completely lacks any water sanitation, one in six has no hot water supply, only 40 per cent. have separate dining rooms, only 50 per cent. have playing fields, no more than 60 per cent. have an assembly hall, and only 41 per cent. a separate staff room.

Let hon. Members try to visualise these conditions and picture the difficulties of teaching in them, and teaching, more often than not, over-sized classes. Then, bearing this factor in mind, let hon. Members realise that there will be 750,000 more children in these schools in 1970.

The position of the secondary schools is little better. We talk a great deal about science teaching. I notice that in its most recent survey the Association of Science Masters says that if we take only grammar schools and apply the standard applied by the Industrial Fund to independent schools only 1 per cent. satisfy their test in science laboratory standards. Against this background we have to regard the building programme today as inadequate. This is why, in spite of the economic crisis, we on this side of the House resisted cuts made at the expense of education.

First, there were the minor works, which were important because the improvement and modernisation of the old schools is so desperately needed. The value of minor works has gone up steadily over the years. In 1960–61, the value of minor works started was £21 million. No one for a moment, and least of all. Lord Eccles, regarded this as the ceiling. It was a satisfactory achievement, but it was only a stage towards far greater expenditure. The economic crisis came, and this was the particularly vulnerable part of education expenditure. It was halved and then more than halved. This was a mean and contemptible economy.

The present Minister, in a way which Education would describe as shabby and shifty, has created the impression that he has restored the minor works programme to £21 million. He has done nothing of the sort. He has brought it back to no more than £16 million. This takes no acount of the increased building costs and the greater needs caused by the fact that the programme was, interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

We have a five-year school building programme under which it is the Government's aim to get work costing £300 million started in that period. In 1961–62, actual works started were of the value of £66,400,000. The economic crisis came and Lord Eccles told us that he had been obliged to cut the programme back to £55 million, that is, £11 million less than the starts achieved in 1961–62. He informed the respective local education authorities and we on this side of the House pressed him to review the programme. He said that he could not do so and he could not increase the allocations made.

I therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman, as he then was, to provide the House with particulars of the programme. He gave us the particulars, but they did not add up to £55 million. They added up to £47 million, or £19 million short of what had been achieved in 1960–61. Lord Eccles, however, offered us one consolation. He said that he still believed that at the end of the fourth year he would have achieved four-fifths of the five-year programme and that we should have a £60 million allocation in the fifth year. Incidentally, he said that we should have this announcement in the late summer or the early autumn.

Lord Eccles went, the late summer went, the early autumn went, and we came to the late winter and with a flourish of trumpets the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister announced his school building programme. What was it? It was £55 million, not a penny more than Lord Eccles had been able to hold under the stress of an economic crisis. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying that he wished to promote public building, the Minister of Education, after all this procrastination and delay, could promise no more than his predecessor had been able to hold under a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was imposing savage economy cuts.

It is, however, far worse than this. What was adequate in 1958 is no longer adequate today. I should like to give the House an illustration. We all welcome the encouraging trend of children staying on at school after the school-leaving age, but this is happening in far greater measure than it was happening in 1958. Again the position is far worse because building costs have gone up sharply since then. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if we take into account building costs and cost limits the total sum would not be £300 million. He estimates that this is a programme amounting to a cost of £344 million. I do not accept this figure. I believe that it is an underestimate, but if we accept it the programme which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is not £5 million short, but £49 million short, of the programme which the Government announced as long ago as 1958. Worse still, all assumptions of the 1958 programme have gone.

When the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry as Parliamentary Secretary he spoke with some ebullience. He said he did not think that there would be unemployment among teachers in the mid-1960s, or that there would not then be a surplus of teachers. The Government were basing their programmes and assumptions on the belief that the child population in our schools was static. We know that the Government were l million or ¾ million out in their estimates. We must make provision for this in these building programmes, but even if we disregarded these factors the right hon. Gentleman has not even matched the targets laid down as long ago as 1958.

Again, just as with Lord Eccles, having waited for months, and having pressed the right hon. Gentleman to give us particulars of the allocations, we find that they do not total £55 million. They do not even add up to the £47 million of Lord Eccles's programme. They total only £42 million. The local authorities submitted programmes totalling, according to particulars given by the right hon. Gentleman, £187 million and probably a good deal more. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had previously indicated that it was more. Against that we have this pitiful allocation of £42 million.

Let us look at the list. We find no fewer than 13 counties which have been told by the Minister that they have no need at all for new school building. They have been given no allocation at all. More than 30 county boroughs have been told that they shall have no school building whatsover. I name a few: Blackburn, Burnley, Derby, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Smethwick and West Ham. Can hon. Members envisage that in these boroughs, heavily concentrated industrial boroughs, there is no place whatever for new school building?

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Will my hon. Friend mention the fact that there are six counties in Wales which have been told that they shall not have a single school building next year?

Mr. Willey

What my hon. Friend says is quite right. I mentioned the 13 counties. The fact that six of them are Welsh shows how badly the Welsh have suffered. They have suffered badly, probably, because of the particular regard which they pay to education.

I mention three boroughs in particular— the right hon. Gentleman will know why I do so—Gateshead, Preston and Worcester. None of these three has received any allocation at all. In the Minister's White Paper top priority was accorded to the reorganisation to the all-age schools. These three boroughs are among the four worst authorities in the country for all-age schools, yet they do not get a single new school building from the Minister.

Let us look at the list a little further. I take the example of Yorkshire. It is not true, unfortunately, that every local education authority in Yorkshire is Labour. They are Labour and Tory. But all the Yorkshire education authorities subscribed to a resolution and sent a telegram to the Minister expressing their deep concern that these very severe reductions should be made at this time against the background of increased costs and the background of the reductions already made in the previous year's programme. We know, of course, that these authorities had reason to feel aggrieved. Almost without exception, they did not get even 50 per cent. of the work which they had declared themselves willing and able to carry out and which they believed to be necessary to implement the Government's policy.

I turn now to London. London was encouraged by the Government when they produced their White Paper, and it said that to carry out the Government's intentions it was willing and able to carry out the necessary programme amounting to £4 million each year. In fact, over the past three years, London has carried out programmes averaging £3,200,000. But it is an interesting index of the increase of school building costs that, although the programmes have averaged in cost £3,200,000, not a single programme is in volume greater than the originally sanctioned programme of £2,400,000. Lord Eccles cut that to £1¾ million. What has the present Minister done? Has he given London an allocation of £3,200,000? Has he given London an allocation of £2,400,000, or has he even given London the allocation of £1¾ million which Lord Eccles gave? The right hon. Gentleman has given London an allocation of £877,000, about half what Lord Eccles gave London under the duress of economic crisis.

Now I come nearer to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I have said that Derby has had no allocation whatever. The Director of Education for Derbyshire has published the figures for the county. In 1960–61, Derbyshire had an allocation of £830,000. In 1961–62, it had an allocation of £1 million, and in 1962–63 it had an allocation of £844,000. Along came Lord Eccles with his economy axe and Derbyshire got an allocation of £756,000. But what has the present Minister done? He has given Derbyshire an allocation of £446,000.

Finally, I turn to my own constituency. Sunderland, with its heavy unemployment, is in the heart of the unemployment area of the North. In Sunderland, we have had a massive school building programme since the end of the war. But—this is why I began as I did—we have to look at these things realistically. It is still the fact, in spite of the new schools, that one in every three children in Sunderland is being taught in a school which was built before the beginning of the century. About half our children in the secondary schools are being taught in schools built before the First World War. This is the measure of the neglect of the Tory Government before the war.

I have said before in the House that what oppresses me in education are the two nations of school children, those who go to the new schools and those who go to the old We could not find this situation more dramatically exposed than it is in Sunderland. We have the new schools all on the periphery, on the new housing estates, and in the heart of the town we have disgraceful and appalling slum schools. This is a condition, of course, which we can find repeated in almost every industrial urban area in the country.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman when he speaks of his own constituency, but does he not agree that this is a widespread problem? In my constituency, for instance, there is one primary school building which was built in 1851.

Mr. Willey

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his help. I do not suggest that this is peculiar to any particular place. It applies throughout the whole country.

The Minister, probably anticipating the interest which he knew I should take, and have taken, in these programmes, issued a Press release which made a special point of what his Department had done for Sunderland. He pointed out that, in fact, Sunderland has the largest allocation of any education authority in the North-East except for the counties of Durham and Northumberland. This is absolutely true. But what is equally true is that the allocation we have received from the right hon. Gentleman is the smallest allocation we have had for five years and it is £200,000 less than the allocation we got two years ago.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)

Since the hon. Gentleman is making a point about Sunderland, and has referred to a large number of authorities which are to receive less in 1964–65 than in 1963–64, I should point out that my figures show that Sunderland received £49,000 in 1963–64 and is to receive £320,000 in 1964–65.

Mr. Wiley

What the Minister overlooks is that the £49,000 allocation was so ridiculous and contemptible that his predecessor immediately revised it after I had raised the matter in the House.

In view of his ill-success last year, I advised Lord Eccles, the previous Minister, to stop being pushed around from pillar to post by the Treasury and to stop wasting his time in the Cabinet. I do not know whether he took this advice to heart, or whether it was the Government who thought that he was too tough a Minister of Education. But, however much Lord Eccles failed, he did not fail so miserably as has the present Minister, who frustrated and exasperated the University Grants Committee last year. He upset the universities, and it will take them a long time to recover. Now he has frustrated and upset—I say this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—every education authority in the country.

Let us now turn to the alarming question of the teacher shortage. No one should be in any doubt about how grim is the teacher supply situation. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with that because that is what he himself has said. But it is no good saying it and not accepting responsibility for it. The responsibility is that of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. This is the result of past indifference and neglect.

I remind the House of what was said in July, 1956, by Lord Eccles, when he was Minister. He told the House: It is now too late to build any more training colleges. They would come into service only in 1958, and their first students to enter the schools would pass out of those colleges only in 1960, by which date the school population will be declining …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 445.] In the event, there were 300.000 more children in the schools when the time came. What disturbs me far more than this massive miscalculation is that there was no sense of urgency for the Government to deal with the problem of oversized classes. This was the great opportunity. If the Government had taken that opportunity, they would have failed, but they would nevertheless have prevented the chaos which we are now facing.

The problem of oversized classes is the biggest source of social inequality and the greatest bar to equality of opportunity that there is. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with that, because those are words which he has used. But it is no good saying that without accepting responsibility. The Minister was Parliamentary Secretary in 1958 when the Government rejected the very cautious advice of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers, which recommended that 16,000 more places should be provided in the training colleges.

That is why we have oversized classes today, eighteen years after the war. We have had no policy from the Government, but only a makeshift provision from year to year. It is incredible. One would think that in this country children sprang from the womb five years old with their school caps on. The birth rate began to increase and to increase very sharply in 1955, and it has gone on increasing sharply ever since, but the Government have not taken account of that increase.

When I undertook the responsibilities of the Opposition's spokesman on education, and opened my first debate on the subject in 1961, the facts were stark and obvious—the birthrate figures, the oversized classes, the wastage rates among teachers. Lord Eccles was kind enough to comment that I had made an interesting speech. He said that he had believed that in 1965 there would be 6 million children in the schools, but that he now thought that there would be 7 million. Having made that interesting observation, he said that he could not see how he could go any further in the training of teachers. He said that the Government were awaiting the Robbins Report, but nothing was done.

We returned to the issue of the crisis in teacher supply last summer. The then Parliamentary Secretary said "We had estimated that the school population would be 7 million and remain at that figure; but, oh dear me! we were wrong. We understand that it will be at least 7¾ million in 1970 and 8½ million by 1980." Because that was the second occasion on which we had raised the subject, the Government had to produce something. They produced a couple of "gimmicks"—auxiliary service and short-term commission. What has the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about those this afternoon? They were produced dramatically as the solution, but nothing has been heard of them since. They were quietly buried until we had another debate on education.

The Minister himself has said that this problem is the biggest single source of social inequality in Britain. He gave me the figures recently.There are million children in primary schools in classes of more than 40; there are nearly 2½ million in oversized classes—and those are classes which are oversized by pre—war standards and those are the figures for January, 1962. Why cannot we have the figures for January, 1963? What is the good of the Department having a computor if we have to wait all this time for the figures? We want the figures for 1963, because this is the year of intermission.

The appalling figures for 1962 which the right hon. Gentleman has given me are the optimum figures. From now on the position will deteriorate rapidly and will be worse next year than this. The Government estimate that there are 5,000 fewer first appointments in primary schools this year than last year. We know the wastage rate of teachers and we know that we began the year with 2,500 fewer teachers in the primary schools than last year. By a singular feat of social engineering, it so happens that this year when we have a shortfall of teachers, is the first year of the new bulge coming into the schools.

The crisis of teacher shortage which is facing our schools is not just a question of the numbers of teachers. It is also a matter of the qualifications of the teachers. As I pointed out in our last debate, whereas 78 per cent, of the teachers in the grammar schools are graduate teachers only 17 per cent. in secondary modern schools are graduate teachers. The disparity is almost as great as that between elementary schools and grammar schools before the war. It is no good talking about parity of esteem and equality of opportunity if this disparity exists. Among the graduate teachers there is an acute and desperate shortage of teachers of mathematics and science.

We can deal with this problem only it we have a policy. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about the longterm aspects of the eighth Report of the National Advisory Council? What has he to say in advance of the Robbins Report? We know that the Robbins Report will say that there is an appalling inadequacy in the provision of higher education. We have to act now. We ought to have acted years ago.

When the right hon. Gentleman says, as he will say, that the Government are waiting for the Robbins Report, I remind him that we are still awaiting the implementation of the Crowther Report, which is very germane to the issue of higher education. We will not have the numbers we need in higher education until we raise the school-leaving age. We will not get the numbers in full-time education at 18 until everyone is educated up to 16.

The truth is that the Government have no plan and have given us no constructive response. What they have given has been too little, too late, and too begrudgingly. The right hon. Gentleman recently expressed his great personal pleasure at announcing further places in the training college—I do not know how many we have had. We welcome the increase, but I join with Education in saying that the Minister's statements are very shifty and shabby. He knows that he cannot do this on £7 million.

We are facing a desperate shortage. In the light of this shortage, it is a great tragedy that last year 2,000 or more fully qualified young people failed to embark on training for teaching in the training colleges and that several thousand failed to get into university. The tragedy will be greater, because we know that this year the position will be worse and that next year it will be much worse. Yet this still evokes no plan and no response from the Government. All that we have had is makeshift arrangements year after year.

When I heard about the right hon. Gentleman's plan to disrupt the Burnham Committee and to destroy the negotiating machinery which has been built up over the years, I thought that this was gigantic stupidity, the peevishness of a Billy Bunter dictator. But I have had second thoughts. I do not think that that is the explanation. I think that this is the exasperation of a man not big enough for his job. No one would gainsay, least of all myself, the size of this job. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to escape his responsibility by deliberately causing a diversion even at the cost of disrupting negotiating machinery which has been laboriously and patiently built up over the years.

Not only will the right hon. Gentleman fail, but his failure will cause a volume of protest which will join the increasing volume of discontent which will sweep not only him but his Government from office.

4.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: recognising the continuing problem of staffing the schools and the difficult physical conditions under which many schools still have to work, welcomes the notable progress made with the recruitment and supply of teachers and the impementation of the school building programme set out in the White Paper of 1958: and notes with approval the Government action in devoting a steadily rising proportion of the national resources to the public system of education". The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) uses such a quantity of black in the picture that he paints of the education service that it is sometimes hard to distinguish any likeness between the picture and the reality. I would never suggest that his speeches were other than works of art, but his effort today was more in the nature of a thoroughly gloomy abstract than an attempt at representational painting. His general charge—and, in essence, it is a generalised charge that he makes—is that we do not spend enough money, that we are starving the service, and that we give to education a miserably low priority. I think that that is his charge, because throughout he argued that inadequacies resulted from insufficient expenditure.

That is an odd charge, as I hope to show, to make of the Government at this time, and it is made all the odder by the quarter from which it comes, whether one considers the record of hon. Members opposite in office or their present attitudes. One would never guess from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that Britain spends more per head on education than almost any Western European country.

Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Who says that?

Mr. Chataway

The U.N.E.S.C.O. statistics. They may be checked by hon. Members who wish to check them.

Before turning to general questions of priorities and gross expenditure, I should like to give a little more of the detail of the two main subjects of the debate —teacher supply and school building.

I take first the question of the supply of teachers, because it is here—in securing for the schools enough teachers of the right quality—that my right hon. Friend places his first emphasis. In common with, I think, every other developed nation, we have today a situation, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in which the demand for teachers substantially exceeds the supply. Overlarge classes, particularly in some of the primary schools, as the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have said, are a big hindrance to equality of opportunity. They place a burden on teachers, an obstacle in the way of many children's full development, and undoubtedly involve a waste of talent, particularly of talent which is less than first-class.

It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have embarked on, and we are now in the middle of, an expansion of teacher training colleges which is not only without precedent in this country, but has few parallels, if any, anywhere else, Our prime source of supply of new teachers lies in the teacher training colleges. There are now 142 general and specialist colleges, plus four concerned with technical teacher training. They are of critical importance.

As the House knows, we embarked upon a major expansion of the training colleges in 1958. It seemed to me that some of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms —I do not say all of them—would have required estimates from the Registrar-General or from my right hon. Friend's predecessor as to the way in which the birthrate was likely to move, which seems to me unreasonable. The expansion which we embarked on in 1958, half of which was completed last year, was designed to add 24,000 permanent training places. We have supplemented this effort by keeping on certain premises due to be given up, by opening, as we are in the process of doing, a number of day units, some of them in improvised premises, sometimes attached to existing colleges and in other cases as separate colleges.

I draw particular atention to the special day provision which has been made in the larger centres of population for older students. There are now eight day colleges specially catering for their needs, and they are proving a great success. With all these measures to date and the good use to which the colleges are already putting their accommodation, the total number in the colleges has already risen from 28,000 in 1957–58 to 48,000 this year. Of course, much more accommodation is yet in the pipeline. We were, therefore, able to look forward to a total training college population of 65,000 by 1966–67.

But we have not been content with that, and, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North cursorily mentioned, my right hon. Friend recently announced the Government's decision to accept in full the recommendation of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers that we should aim to raise total numbers in the training colleges to no fewer than 80,000 by the end of the decade. This is by any standards a very large undertaking indeed. It will involve something approaching a tripling of numbers in twelve years—less if the time taken in planning is omitted—and I think that the House would be interested if I dwelt for a few minutes on some of the issues involved in this exercise.

In carrying out this further expansion, my right hon. Friend has laid particular emphasis on the need to derive the greatest possible advantage from investment by intensive use of the places provided. We have gained much experience of these possibilities as colleges have responded to the pressures of numbers already put upon them, and we believe that still more can be done. Various methods have been canvassed by the National Advisory Council and others. One of them—the possibility of keeping a college open all the year round—has been mentioned in debate before.

My right hon. Friend hopes that there will be a readiness to experiment, but has taken the view that the precise method to be adopted is for colleges themselves to determine in the light of their own particular circumstances, and they are, of course, rightly anxious to preserve the quality of training and to avoid undue pressures upon the students. At the moment, it looks as if the most useful and most fruitful methods will be found in some expansion of the size of teaching groups, still more intensive use of lecture space, and an extension of the formal teaching day.

Although more students will be accommodated in lodgings, or living at home, the colleges will make a great effort to ensure that they share to the full in the communal life of the college. If these measures are to have full effect—and this could be considerable—there will undoubtedly be cases where selective additions to accommodation will be needed, whether in teaching, library space, or communal accommodation, so that the whole may be used to the full, and we expect to devote many of the further resources that are available to projects of that kind.

We also hope to use this opportunity to increase certain colleges to a considerable size. It has been the intention to expand the size of these colleges. In 1958–59, there were only six colleges with 400 students. Already, there are as many as 47 of that size. We hope now to take this process further both as a result of intensive use and also by building up a significant number of colleges to the 1,000 mark.

Throughout this expansion, emphasis is still placed on training for the primary schools, but as total numbers go up increases will be possible in secondary training. In particular, we shall ensure that specialist provision which is made in science and practical subject is used to the full. The colleges have offered every co-operation in these efforts and the implications of expansion to so large a total are far-reaching for them, as the House will appreciate. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the way in which they are tackling a gigantic job.

The expansion comes at a time when there has been marked improvement in the qualifications of candidates entering the teacher-training colleges.

Mr. G. Thomas

There is not enough room at the universities.

Mr. Chataway

I would not contest that the pressure upon university places has had a good deal to do with this.

Equally, I would expect that even with the rapid expansion of university provision, we shall be able to maintain a much higher level of qualification in entrants to teacher-training colleges than has been the case in the past. Nearly 40 per cent. of those entering last September had two A-level passes. This will mean that the teacher-training colleges will undoubtedly take their place with the universities and the technical institutions as one of the three main strands of our higher education system. The momentum of academic development which is now being generated should steadily increase.

The Robbins Committee is considering the precise directions and methods by which that should occur. One thing, however, which seems plain already is the need for a better opportunity than now exists for students at training colleges who so wish, and who can, to go on to get degrees and similar qualifications.

We are, therefore, now engaged upon the fashioning of the long-term structure of the training college system. I find it difficult to understand what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North might have had in mind when he talked about the absence of a plan concerning the training colleges. Here, surely, we are embarked upon a long-term plan of the utmost significance and the scale am', speed of this operation cannot leave much doubt of the urgency of the efforts now being made to increase teacher supply.

What of the immediate prospects? This year of intermission, when there was less output from the teacher-training colleges because of the introduction of the three-year course in 1960, obviously presented considerable problems for the colleges. Many feared that they would not be able to admit nearly as many as in previous years, but by making a great effort they did even better and took well over 17,000 students, an achievement which deserves thanks and admiration.

Admittedly, about 800 good or acceptable candidates and over 2,000 borderline candidates were unsuccessful. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North accuses my right hon. Friend of making slipshod statements, yet he says that 2,000 good and acceptable candidates were refused entry. That simply is not the case. The figures have been published and are available.

Mr. Wiley

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "good" and "borderline"? Incidentally, he is quarrelling with the Minister's figure of about 1,000. I took my figure of 2,000 from the Central Clearing House figures.

Mr. Chataway

These categories are known. They are made by the Clearing House. I am not saying that all the borderline candidates would not be accepted for a teacher training college if there were space. All I am saying is that the figures as the hon. Member presented them were wrong. Eight hundred definitely good or acceptable candidates were refused entry and a further 2,000 borderline candidates also failed to gain admission.

Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

How many borderline candidates applied for admission but failed to pursue their application for a variety of reasons which could have been overcome if the Ministry had had a more friendly attitude towards their application?

Mr. Chataway

That is another question, which requires a breakdown of the numbers who withdrew for a host of reasons, either because their qualifications were clearly inadequate, because they were going to university, or for many other reasons. I am not saying that all the borderline candidates would have failed to gain entry had there been sufficient places, but many of these people were young enough to stay on at school for another year and to try for a place again next September.

It is still too early to predict the size of the colleges' intake next time. There are more applications, both men and women, than ever before, but, on the other hand, many more places will be available. We shall have completed a further section of the current expansion programme for 24,000 places and there will be at least four new temporary day colleges and a number of day units attached to existing colleges. These are intended mainly for girls coming straight from school and when fully in use, they should be able to provide about 1,600 places. All these have been found since the early summer of last year. I should like to thank all the local education authorities who searched their areas to find them.

I hope, too, that many colleges will be able, even in the coming September, to make a good initial response to the plans which my right hon. Friend has put before them, and which I have just described, for more intensive use of their premises. Thus, although it is too early to give precise figures, I am confident that the colleges will surpass all their previous records.

The year of intermission, with few recruits coming from the training colleges, presented difficulties also for the schools. Here, too, there was a great deal of apprehension last summer. In the event, although there has been a temporary decline of about 1 per cent. in the nation's full-time teaching force, the schools are weathering the current academic year much more successfully than many had feared, helped by a vigorous recruitment of part-time teachers—whose numbers are 4,000 higher this year compared with an increase of 3,000 the year before—and of married women returning. They have been helped, too, by teachers postponing retirement for a year and, I admit, by an increase in the number of temporary teachers, although this was only to be expected this year.

Now, the schools can look forward to an increasing flow from the training colleges. The immediate increase in intakes to the colleges will have a welcome effect within the next few years and as the expansion programme gathers momentum, its benefits will be increasingly felt by the schools towards the end of this decade and in the 1970s.

It is true, as will be seen from the latest issue of the Ministry's statistics, that our estimates of school population have already had to be revised upwards compared with those of the seventh Report of the National Advisory Council. We must now reckon to have another¼million children in school in 1980 and there is reason to expect that the figure may need to be further increased. It is hardly surprising that adjustments of this kind have to be made as further evidence accumulates of the trend for young women to marry earlier, to have their families sooner and to have larger families, too.

There are two other main sources besides the training colleges from which the schools can expect reinforcements. Recent evidence about the progress so far achieved in persuading married women to come back to the schools and the prospects for a special continuing influx of these teachers are encouraging. Figures about the progress of the campaign to attract women back to the schools have been given to the House from time to time. Now that the campaign, which was launched in February, 1961, has completed its second year, hon. Members will be glad to know that the rate of recruitment in the second year totalled nearly 5,600, which was a real advance on the very promising figure of 4.700 achieved during the campaign's first year.

The fact that the campaign has sustained its momentum for two years in this way is encouraging. The evidence now available about the prospect for the future is even more important. Although the Nuffield Survey on women and teaching is not yet complete, we have been allowed by Professor Kelsall to see the valuable and significant information which he has collected and from which certain provisional conclusions have already been drawn.

This information suggests, for example, that we can expect at least half of the young women who leave the schools early in their teaching career to return when their family commitments allow, and that, on average, they are likely to return about ten years after leaving the service. It seems that the intention to return to teaching is most marked amongst the younger teachers.

These are good omens for the future. We were rather surprised by the significant number of women who return while their children are still under school age. This was one of the considerations which influenced my right hon. Friend in making his recent announcement in the House about the provision of nursery schools for the children of teachers who wish to return to the schools. That is one example—and an important one—of the ways in which we are buttressing our policy with research.

I have already referred to the growth in the number of part-time teachers. Married women account very largely for this development. About two in every five of the married women returning in the last two years have taken part-time posts, at least initially. Professor Kelsall's data confirmed, as one would expect, a continuing preference among a high proportion of married women for part-time service.

The employment of part-time teachers on a large scale is clearly one aspect of the general staffing situation to which the schools will need to adapt themselves. Many authorities and many schools have learned to employ part-time teachers extremely efficiently. I do not underestimate the difficulties there are in this, but I am quite sure that the success of some areas can be followed by others.

The supply of teachers of mathematics and science was debated in the House on the Christmas Adjournment and, of course, the shortage of these teachers continues to be serious. I referred then to the steering committee which brought together representatives of the universities, schools and the Ministry to consider the problem of securing an adequate supply of graduates in mathematics. This committee, among other work, has secured information about the number of students admitted to honours courses in mathematics at the universities, and it is clear that these numbers are increasing very rapidly. The universities seem likely to produce roughly twice as many of these graduates this year as they are doing in the middle of the 1950s and admissions to earlier years of the course show that the trend is being well maintained.

From all these sources, the flow of teachers is broadening. From the university expansions we can expect greater numbers. Married women are returning to the schools in larger numbers. The whole scale of teacher-training provision is undergoing little short of a revolution.

Now I turn to the subject of school building and, first, I must comment on the word "cuts" that appears in the Opposition Motion and with which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made great play. He knows that it is thoroughly misleading invariably to describe the system by which we decide the projects which are to be included in any programme as the Ministry "cutting" the programmes of local education authorities.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

What else is it?

Mr. Chataway

I will explain to the hon. Lady. The procedure is probably not widely understood outside the House. One gathers that from reading local newspapers. Perhaps I may explain it briefly for those who may be under a genuine misconception.

Each local education authority may submit a list of projects from which, after comparison with the needs of other areas, and bearing in mind the resources he has available, my right hon. Friend selects those that are to go into the programme for any one year. He does not object to authorities submitting lists of projects which they know to be larger and more expensive than can be authorised, because it gives him a broader picture of their needs and may facilitate the right selection. But there can be few authorities in any year which expect to get every project that they have submitted included in the programme.

If, in some year, every project of every authority were to be so included—perhaps by calling a complete halt to hospital or house building—I think that there would be quite a large number of authorities and ratepayers who would be very alarmed. I hope, therefore, that in this debate we may have a rational discussion which does not start from the belief that projects submitted by local education authorities add up in total to a sort of national plan which the Minister then proceeds, as a result of a change of policy, to cut.

Mrs. Slater

Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that every local authority deliberately puts in more than it needs?

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

Of course they do and have done for years.

Mrs. Slater

I said "every local authority". Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that all authorities have not really considered their problems? Is he aware that I have here a list of my local authority's requirements for the last five years and of the schools which have been struck out by the Minister each year and never returned, but which we consider to be of vital importance to our education programme? He suggests that this is not a cut, but no local authority will believe that it is not.

Mr. Chataway

Perhaps the hon. Lady will develop that when she comes to make her speech.

The fact is that this is the procedure which has been followed by successive Governments. Inevitably, it is the Government's job to judge between the priorities in different areas and the only way in which one could avoid having a cut in the sense in which hon. Members opposite use the word is if every local education authority were able to determine the size of its own building programme. If that were the case, however, I do not believe that there would be many local education authorities which would submit building programmes of the size they do now.

This is no criticism of them. It is helpful if they submit a wide range of projects so that they can be compared with the needs of other areas and so that my right hon. Friend has a broad picture. This is just a thought on the procedural aspect. I do not believe that it helps towards a rational discussion to proceed on the assumption that this represents "cutting" by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

Can we apply that to the case of Derby County Borough? The local education authority put up some schemes to the Minister and he struck the whole lot out. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that was not a cut in the borough programme? Does he say that there is no need in Derby for any new schools?

Mr. Chataway

I am not saying that Derby will not need any new schools. All I say is that, in allocating the resources that we have in any one year, it is necessary to make choices between different areas. There are 50 local education authorities which have larger allocations this year than they had last year. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North does not add to his argument greatly by picking out local education authorities and implying that they are entirely representative.

Mr. Willey

rose—

Mr. Chataway

No, I must get on.

Now I come to consider the figures for 1964–65 building programme. This is the last for the 1960–65 quinquennium, and will complete the £300 million building programme announced in the Government's 1958 White Paper. The figure for 1964–65 has been announced by my right hon. Friend as not less than £55 million, the figure for 1963–64.

But as in the previous year, the total of new projects announced to the authorities is less than the figure for authorised starts. It is around this difference that much discussion has centred. The hon. Gentleman has frequently ignored the difference between programmes, between starts and between work done. He compares the figures with gay abandon. Today, he tried several times to make capital out of the difference existing between them. I will explain as clearly as I am able the reasons for the disparity between the two figures.

If every project started in the year it was programmed to start, there would be no difference. But for a variety of reasons mostly unavoidable—difficulties of site acquisitions, shortage of architectural staff and tendering problems—some projects start late. Therefore, when fixing the total value of new projects announced to the authorities, we have to take account not only of the starts authorised for that year, but the value of the projects likely to be carried over from the previous years, and any rise in the value of those projects compared with the original estimates.

The five-year programme has to be looked at as a whole. In the first two years the Government deliberately announced programmes somewhat in excess of the authorised starts so as to "prime the pump" and move to a higher level of investment quickly and smoothly. We did the same in the case of the five-year further education building programme from 1956 to 1961.

Mr. Willey

I concentrated on starts, so that there would be a consistent comparison throughout my argument. I took the year and gave the starts, which amounted to £66,400,000, because this showed what the local authorities could do. This was the whole point. If they could start work totalling this sum, they should do the same in the year we are now discussing.

Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the figure for 1961–62. In considering what starts are possible there are a number of other factors which have to be taken into account. The large school building programmes of 1960–61 and 1961–62 will cost a great deal more than was originally allowed to them. That is mainly due to rises in cost limits which came after the announcement of the programmes and increases in the cost of new construction. In consequence the programmes of new projects for the last two years have had to be below the starts authorised. But there is no doubt that work done in the five-year period will amount to the full £300 million.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman say what allowance has been made over the five-year period for the increase in costs to which he has referred, of the £300 million in 1958? We ought to know exactly what the Government have in mind.

Mr. Chataway

I am coming to that point.

The hon. Lady's argument is that in view of the rising costs the Government ought to announce an increase in order to ensure that a quinquennial programme is carried through which is worth £300 million. It would be very satisfactory always to be able to avoid the effects of inflation in that way. It would be even more satisfactory from our point of view to have had work done over the five years to the value of £300 million at 1958 prices—the year of the publication of the White Paper.

Those who have supported the Government in resisting and limiting inflation may, with greater justification, complain of its ill-effects. But it is not always possible to compensate for rising costs in that way. Projects programmed in this instance will total fully £300 million over the five years.

No final decision has been taken on this 1964–65 programme, but any further increases in authorised starts will have to await the outcome of the Government's review of capital investment and the future load on the building industry. In any case, the effect of the 1960–65 building programmes will be very substantial. The programme will greatly alter conditions in which most of our schools have to function.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the N.U.T. survey. A survey is also being undertaken by my right hon. Friend. Both will refer to the condition of schools in the summer of 1962. Previous to 1960 nearly all school building resources had to be devoted to providing roofs over heads. There was very little if any capital devoted to straight improvements. Now there is £200 million for straight improvements in the programme up to 1965 and, therefore, one may look for striking and recognisable improvements in standards particularly in secondary schools in the next few years.

Mr. G. Thomas

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what proportion of that money is to go to areas which has been refused any new schools, like the six Welsh counties? What proportion for improvement is going to them?

Mr. Chataway

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman expects to obtain that figure from me at the moment. But I will get him the figure.

Alongside that quantitative expansion continued efforts are being made to achieve better schools at a more economic cost. I should not like the House to think that the emphasis is purely on science, or that the only problem considered is that of science. A long-term effort is needed to modernise our schools and there is a firm basis of past achievement and experience and current work from which to tackle that task.

I have outlined the Government's action in both spheres covered by the Opposition's Motion. In both the true picture is one of rapid expansion. This is questioned by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). If he will look at the figures, I think that he will find that he cannot come to any other conclusion. The charge of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is that we do not spend sufficient money. He made virtually no other serious criticism of our policy. I understand that it is not his case that there is wasteful expenditure in any direction, or that in any educational field our resources could be better distributed, or that we have the balance between capital and current expenditure wrong. None of these charges is made by the hon. Gentleman. His professed concern is solely with gross expenditure.

Let me deal briefly with gross expenditure. What has happened? In 1952–53 education in England and Wales, excluding the universities, cost £404 million. In 1957–58, it cost £663 million. In 1962–63, the figure is over £1,000 million and next year it will probably be £1,088 million. These figures show a steady expansion in the first six years of Conservative Government which has gathered momentum since 1957, and when every allowance is made for inflation it is still the case that the total education expenditure has almost doubled in real terms—

Mr. Lubbock

Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures in real terms?

Mr. Chataway

If the hon. Member is asking me to do the conversion in my head, he overestimates my abilities. But the hon. Gentleman can well see that it represents double in real terms. Perhaps he would prefer it in proportions of the gross national product.

Mr. Lubbock

Yes.

Mr. Chataway

Of course, if the nation is better off today than in 1951, one would expect a higher proportion of the national resources to be devoted to education.

Mr. Lubbock

indicated assent.

Mr. Chataway

I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

From 3.1 per cent. of the gross national product in 1951 the figure has risen to 3.8 per cent. in 1957 and 4.7 per cent this year. It will probably be 4.9 per cent. in 1963–64, which is little short of a rise of 2 per cent. of the gross national product. One wonders what precentage of the gross national product hon. Gentlemen opposite believe should be devoted to education.

Where else are the necessary cuts to be imposed? Should hospitals or housing receive a smaller proportion of the national resources? Hon. Members opposite have made it clear that they would spend no less on defence, although they would spend it differently. It is not clear that they wish to see a larger proportion of the national product being expended by local government and the Central Government.

They cannot ride out this question by talking about growth, because it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House extremely unlikely not only that there would be any growth under a Labour Government, but that even if a Labour Government were able to achieve the N.E.D.C. 4 per cent. rate of growth, rather than the present 2½ per cent.—and their proposition is that if they are able to achieve a 4 per cent. rate of growth they will devote 4 per cent. more, in real terms, to education each year—this makes the criticisms of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North look hollow, because expenditure on education over the past five years has improved by 5.7 per cent. in real terms.

The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) hopes to find a complete answer in the increase of the number of children, but that increase has been about one-sixth over the past decade, during which period expenditure on education has doubled, in real terms.

Mr. Willey

I made it clear that I was not charging the Government with any desire to cut back educational expenditure, but the whole drift of what the hon. Member is now saying is to that end. Will he declare where he stands? Is he in favour of expanding education?

Mr. Chataway

The Conservative Party's record gives the hon. Member the answer to that question. We should not have gone for an expansion of this kind were we not convinced that education should be given a high priority. If the hon. Member really believes that there is a serious possibility of a Labour Government, the best service he can do for education is to persuade his right hon. arid hon. Friends that it is right to make sacrifices and show restraint in other fields in order to devote a rising proportion of the nation's resources to education.

Alongside the hon. Member's criticisms one would expect him to show an awareness of the vastly increased share of the national wealth which has been devoted by this Government to education, and an awareness that it is showing a good return. One would think, from listening to him, that there was nothing to show for an extra 2 per cent. of the gross national product for education, and nothing to show from a doubling in real terms of education expenditure over a decade. What a basis, if ever he were Minister of Education, from which to start arguing with all the other claimants upon the Exchequer that his party encourages so freely! The Government believe that education should be, as it is, the fastest growing item of expenditure in the national budget, not only because we know that there is still much to do but because we recognise that a greatly increased expenditure has brought a greatly increased return, both in skills that are of economic importance to the nation and in expanding individual opportunity.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

If the hon. Member believes that, will he explain why, in the borough which he has the honour to represent, one of the few Catholic grammar schools—St. Joseph's Academy—has been denied the opportunity even of having a science laboratory? How does he explain that, in terms of what he has said?

Mr. Chataway

If the hon. Member suggests that the figures concerning the increase in national expenditure on education that I have given him are fraudulent, I hope that he will frame his charge a little more directly. I have never said that we do not have to make hard choices between different areas. I have never implied for a moment that there is not a great deal left to do. I hope that I made that absolutely clear at several points in my speech. Naturally, as the Member for Lewisham, North, I wish that that project could have been included in the building programme, but I am satisfied that we are taking the right decision, and that there were other projects of higher priority.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

The County Borough of Derby has already figured in the debate, and it may now be appropriate for me to make the brief intervention for which you have been good enough to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise at the express request of the Council of the County Borough of Derby, conveyed to me in an official letter from the Town Clerk. The decision that the Town Clerk should write to me and send me a copy of a letter which the Council addressed to the Ministry on the subject of school building was agreed to unanimously, the Conservative members of the Council giving their support to the proposal of the Labour majority. The proposal was made by a Labour member and seconded by a Conservative member, with not a voice being raised in opposition.

The opening paragraph of the Council's letter to the Minister is in forthright terms. It says: Your letter dated 14th February notifying my Authority of the decision of the Minister not to include any of our proposals in the Major Building Programme for 1964–65, has been received with great dissatisfaction by the Council. I am instructed to write to you expressing their very strong protest at your decision. What moved the Council—including the Conservative members—to write to the Ministry in that way?

I will read the Ministry's letter to the Council. It said: Sir, With reference to Mr. Middleton's letter of 29th June, 1962, I am directed by the Minister of Education to state that he regrets that it has not been found possible to include any of the Authority's projects in the Major Building Programme for 1964–65. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (Signed) S. M. Smith pp. (A. S. Gann) That is a scandalously casual way to notify Derby Council of a major policy decision, which was of immense importance to the borough. It was very damaging to the education policy and programme of the Education Committee, and to the interests of the people of Derby. I should have thought that in a matter of this importance the Minister would have thought it right to sign the letter himself, rather than leave it to his regional officer, Mr. Gann. Indeed, the House will note than not even Mr. Gann troubled to sign the letter himself. He left it to a clerical assistant to sign on his behalf.

But much more serious than the casual and discourteous form of the letter is the substance of the decision which it conveys: no school building at all for Derby in 1964–65; everything cut off; their urgent needs wholly disregarded; their forward plans in chaos; the work of their architect and his staff disrupted at a moment's notice, by an arbitrary Ministerial decision which I confess I find it impossible to understand. I keep in close touch with the educational work of the Council, and I believe that there was nothing in the building programme for 1964–65 which was not genuinely—and I would say urgently—required.

The schools of Derby are a source of pride to all the people—especially the modern schools, which are admirably designed and splendidly equipped. But this has not been done by extravagant or crash programmes. It has been done by very careful planning over the years. All the new building for which the Council asked, and which was part of this planning, is thrown into total confusion by this retrograde and reactionary decision which the Minister has made. No wonder the Council says that Mr. Smith's letter was received with "great dissatisfaction" and that it told the Town Clerk to write expressing its "very strong protest" at the decision.

There was one project to which the Education Committee and the Council attached particular importance—the project to replace St. Mary's Secondary School. That is a Roman Catholic school. I know it and I have greatly admired the work done by the headmaster and staff. It has been agreed for years that the building was no longer adequate for a secondary school and that it must be urgently replaced. The Council put this at the top of its programme for 1964–65. This is what it said in its letter: The highest priority in this Council's submission was for a replacement of St. Mary's Secondary School. This has appeared in our major building programme proposals for a number of years, and is now very much overdue. This particular proposal is strongly supported by the Nottingham Roman Catholic Diocesan Commission for Schools, and the new building would replace premises which are quite inadequate for a secondary school. It would also release the existing premises for use as two primary schools, so relieving considerably growing pressure in the existing Roman Catholic schools. Moreover, as an aided school, the full cost of the proposals would not fall upon public funds. We all admire the devotion and generosity of the Roman Catholic community in raising money for building and maintaining schools. If the project for St. Mary's Secondary School were carried through, the Roman Catholics would have carried a quarter or a half of the financial burden, according to a formula which the Ministry has devised and applies in such cases.

I cannot conceive how the Minister came to this extraordinary decision about St. Mary's. Probably the reason was that he had never heard of St. Mary's and did not make any inquiry into Derby's problems, but gave his regional officer orders in general terms to make economies, and endorsed without question what that officer said. I am now challenging that decision with all my power. I am calling on the Minister to tell us tonight that he will reverse it, and reverse it without delay.

In asking that I am transmitting the wishes of Derby Council and of the Conservative members on it. This is what they say in the Town Clerk's letter: My council feel the urgent need for going ahead with this particular project very strongly indeed, and I am instructed to ask the Minister for reconsideration of his decision and the inclusion of this project at least in the 1964–65 major building programme. I hope the Minister will tell us that he has agreed to do what my Derby friends desire. In urging the case for Derby, I am also voicing the wishes of all the boroughs, county boroughs and counties which have been given nothing for school building and of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke this afternoon. In a telegram the Yorkshire Association of Education Committees said to the Minister on 19th March: This Yorkshire Association of Education Committees, meeting today in Ilkley expresses its deep concern that, after the reductions already made in the 1963–64 building programme of authorities in membership and the greatly increased costs of building, there should he severe reductions in their 1964–65 building programmes; and asks the Minister to make urgent representations to Her Majesty's Treasury for additional funds to be placed at the disposal of the education service in respect of both school and further education building". I have been in close touch with teachers in Derby in recent weeks. In nearly thirty years I have never known them so united and so indignant as they are today. The Burnham machinery was created in 1922—before either of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench was born. It has worked admirably for forty years. The Committee is very widely representative of the teachers and local education authorities who employ them and who, let it be remembered, pay 40 per cent. of their salaries. The Minister came to his present office in the great purge of last July. After nine months he has done something which none of his predecessors has ever done. He has not only rejected the Committee's last proposal about salaries, but he has done so without taking into consideration, so far as I can see see, any of the proposals about differentials which had been agreed to and adopted over the years since 1945. Let him be very certain that the teachers bitterly resent what he has done. They regard it as a grave discouragement to the younger teachers who bear such a heavy burden of the out-of-school activities which are of such importance to our educational system. Several people who are well informed have said to me last weekend that they believe what the Minister has done will accentuate the tendency for young teachers to augment their incomes by taking outside employment in their spare time instead of taking out-of-school activities to which they have given themselves in the past. By recent decisions the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have struck a grave blow at their own future political careers. They have done much worse than that—they have struck a grave blow at British education. In the Treasury view they may have made economies, but the Treasury's economies often mean a grievous national loss.

Mr. Chataway

I think the right hon. Member must be under a basic misconception about the whole Burnham Com- mittee question. There is absolutely no question of my right hon. Friend asking for a rise for teachers less than that recommended by the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Noel-Baker

Of course, I understand that the Minister, against the wishes of the Burnham Committee, has redistributed the sum which has been agreed, but it is on the building programme that the Treasury believes it has made economies and the Treasury's economies often mean a grievous national loss.

Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Mr. Noel-Baker

I cannot give way now. Our education is Britain's future. The Ministers have done a bad day's work for Britain by the short-sighted and lamentable proposals which we are debating today.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)

The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), in his praise of the Burnham Committee, seems to be more diehard than the deepest Tory I have ever known. Because something is old it must therefore be good and incapable of improvement—that would seem to be his argument. I am afraid that I cannot follow him in it, although I shall have something to say about teachers.

The Opposition Motion regrets the further cuts in the school building programmes and the failure to … recruit sufficient teachers". It is true that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but one is somewhat amazed at the effrontery of this particular attack. It is not as if there were any cause whatever for the Opposition to do its job by keeping the Government on their toes, because the Government have been on their toes for a very long time in this matter. I have been refreshing my memory about some things which used to happen during the six post-war years in reference to education; I have looked at various Ministry circulars which were published from 1947 to 1951. I read: the shortage of certain principal building materials … will inevitably entail drastic curtailment of new works programmes generally. … Even in 1949 it will be essential to avoid new building wherever possible.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

Four years after the war.

Mr. Longden

I also read: There will be some slowing down of our advance in educational building. That was said by Mr. Attlee in 1949. Then I read: For the 1951 programme a reduction of 12½ per cent. …will not be sufficient. The maintenance of… Government policy —" depends, however, on the strictest economy being exercised … Authorities are asked to submit to the Ministry as soon as possible … a statement showing the amount of the savings which they will effect … The value of improvements to old schools started during the financial year, 1951–52, must still be restricted to about three-fifths of the figure for … 1949. Lastly, in 1951: The Minister regrets"— the late Miss Otis had nothing on him— that the resources available are not sufficient to permit any significant increase in expenditure on educational works.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

Would the hon. Gentleman say from which document he is quoting?

Mr. Longden

These are extracts from Ministry circulars, published in the "Conservative Party Campaign Guide". The source of my information does not make the quotations any less authoritative. We must remember, too, that in those days there were no nursery schools. There was a ban on them, and on major improvements to old schools. There were no new buildings for the school meals service. There were reduced transport facilities, and increased charges for school meals. No doubt they were all necessary at the time, but they were certainly more "cutting" than anything we are doing now.

By contrast, what are we doing now? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he first took office gave education first priority of the social services, and this afternoon we have heard that the total cost of offering equal opportunities to all our children has nearly trebled since 1951, and that it is now 4.7 per cent. of the gross national product. Not enough yet, it will be said, and truth- fully said, but it is increasing annually far more rapidly, I am sorry to say, than the gross national product, and if the Opposition would lend their influence to increasing that rather than increasing the expenditure on education, which we do not have to be asked to do, it would be more beneficial to the country.

As for school buildings, we have built four times as many schools each year as the Opposition did when they were in office. The average number is 480 against 110. I know that these are unpalatable facts to the party opposite, but it is time that they were disclosed. Every day during our period of office one school and one-third of another school has been completed, and they are much better schools and they cost far less per place than those built by the Opposition.

As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, between 1951 and 1962 the number of school children in England and Wales increased by 1¼ million. What he did not say was that the number of school places increased by 2½ million, and that 380,000 places are now under construction. Nor did he tell us that during the same period the all-age, or the black list, schools fell from 5,636 to 775. The £300 million programme for England and Wales announced in the 1958 White Paper for the five-year period 1960 to 1965 will have been achieved when the amount recently announced for 1964–65 has been spent. There has been no cut, and the fact of the matter is that any figure which is less than the Opposition would have liked represents a "cut" to them.

The making of new places in teacher training colleges forms a bridge from the Opposition's first criticism to their second. Since 1958–59 these colleges, as we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, have expanded their intake from 28,000 to 48,000, and plans have now been made to enable them to take 80,000 by 1970, which is the number recommended by the National Advisory Council.

What, then, of the alleged failure to take adequate steps to recruit sufficient teachers"? The supply of teachers depends upon adequate facilities for training and upon enough applicants to be trained. The facilities are not yet enough but they are being increased as rapidly as it is practically possible to increase them. As to applicants, in spite of the pay and conditions, there are more would-be teachers of good calibre than can at present be trained.

That brings me to this perennial discontent about salaries. I made it the subject of my maiden speech in this House and said: … I have chosen this occasion not only because of the paramount national importance of the subject … but also because it is or should be non-contentious. I went on to say: I pass now to the second method whereby we seek to give a sound education to our children, and that method is by paying their teachers properly … we who control the public purse … should not sit idly by and allow the builders of future generations to be paid scarcely more than a jobbing gardener."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, cc. 2013 and 2016–17.] I am amused to see that the then Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who had the customary task of offering congratulations, said: I am quite certain that he will get the teachers' vote. He has indeed been most outspoken in support of their claims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 2018.] Today I fear that I shall not get the bulk of the teachers' vote because I have had to tell them quite plainly that I wholly support my right hon. Friend in what he is trying to do for the profession.

After all, my right hon. Friend has nothing whatsoever to gain by alienating the whole of the teaching profession. If it be true, which I doubt, that he has done—

Mr. G. Thomas

Does the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend knows better than the profession what is good for the profession?

Mr. Longden

We are not always the best judges of what is good for us. By Statute my right hon. Friend is responsible for the conduct of the educational system in this country. He has nothing to gain by alienating the teachers. His reason can only be that he genuinely believes it to be in the best interests of the profession as a whole. Of course, he must, as the largest paymaster, be a party to the negotiations, and of course he must have a say in the salary structure of the profession.

I have had to tell my teachers, too, that I do not think that the proposed starting salaries compare unfavourably with the first earnings, generally after six years' training, in other professions. Nor can the other professions look for such early increments. Between 1955 and 1961 the average salary of men teachers rose by nearly 50 per cent., and of women teachers by over 50 per cent. In both cases that was more than the average earnings in this country, and very considerably more than the rise in the retail price index.

But the intermediate and ultimate rewards of the teaching profession compare very unfavourably with those of other professions, and I agree with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester who wrote to The Times the other day and said that where scholars do leave the country, in my experience, it is far more often the prospect of future advancement and opportunity than salary which is the operating cause. My right hon. Friend believes that it is that prospect which will encourage the best people to come into teaching, far more than the prospect of an additional £50 at the start, and I agree with him.

Let us look at the solutions the Opposition have to offer. At a time when too many classes are already over-sized, when the number of pupils is increasing, when more are staying on after 15—one-third of the 15-year-olds now stay on as against only one-fifth in 1951—and at a time when six times as many pupils at our secondary modern schools are taking O-level examinations than was the case in 1954, the Labour Party announces that the reduction of all classes to 30 and the increase of the school-leaving age to 16 are decisions which can no longer be postponed". That is to say, they must immediately be introduced. This is to be found in Signposts for the Sixties.

Mrs. White

That does not necessarily mean that it must be immediately implemented. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read the Crowther Report. This made it clear, after a careful study of population trends, that one ought urgently to take a decision on the timetable by which one would then raise the school-leaving age. The Committee said that it ought to have been taken years ago, but we still have not had it from the party opposite. The decision on the timetable would then condition all the other decisions, but we have never had a decision on the timetable. Members opposite said that they accepted the principle, but we have never had the nub of the Crowther Report, which is the decision on the timetable.

Mr. Longden

The hon. Lady is perfectly right, as one would expect her to be, about the Crowther Report, but I was quoting from Signposts for the Sixties, which says that the increase in the school-leaving age to 16 is a decision which can no longer be postponed. I would have said that that means that it must immediately be introduced.

Yet to effect these very desirable reforms another 140,000 plus 20,000—that is, 160,000—teachers would be necessary in our maintained schools. To effect these desirable reforms which "can no longer be postponed" would mean that. There is no indication whatever of where these teachers are to come from, nor any sign of acknowledging the problem of wastage among young women, which is being so successfully tackled by my right hon. Friend. No wonder The Times could write, as it did on 29th June, 1961: An assertion of ambition which so blandly ignores all the more obvious practical impediments … does not deserve very much respect. Not only do the Opposition make suggestions whose fulfilment would demand far more teachers and make no suggestions as to where they are to come from, but they have also made two specific proposals which would very greatly increase our existing difficulties. These two proposals are, first, that they would "integrate", whatever that word means, the so-called public schools, and so saddle the State with the cost of educating getting on for another half million children. Yet not so long ago they were saying, with very much more commonsense—I quote from Learning to Live (1958): We are saying that the citizen has a right to decide for himself. If, in addition to paying his rates and taxes, he wishes to buy private education, he cannot in a free country be prohibited from so doing. I say, "Amen!"

The other specific proposal made by the Labour Party is contained in what The Times has described as a piece of "fairly tale pamphleteering". The Times comments: Everything is to be doubled, or trebled, or quadrupled (it is not clear which) within a term of years (it is not clear how many). We are to have forty-five new universities which are to be centres of research and forward-thinking where new ideas are germinated. To elevate "a wide range of institutions" to university status in order to reduce "academic and social snobberies" is, according to The Times, "a piece of doctrinaire absurdity".

It is a piece of doctrinaire absurdity which well illustrates the Achilles heel of the Labour Party. Its attitudes to Oxford and Cambridge, to the public schools, to the comprehensive schools, and to teachers' salaries, all tell the same story—the adulation of equality and the adulteration of quality. They remind me of the Emperor Claudius who went along with his stick lopping off the heads of the taller poppies to reduce them all to the same size. The Labour Party's highest aim is to ensure the compulsory standardisation of mediocrity. What must at all costs be scotched is the natural inequality of the individual. They are the poppy-loppers of today.

There will always be much more to do, but having regard to the record of the Labour Party when in office and to its policies, or lack of them, when in opposition, I must say that I think these monotonous partisan attacks fail to carry any conviction whatever among those who know the facts. The Government have nothing to be ashamed of in their record, and no intention of resting on it, and I hope that the House will support the Amendment in the Lobby tonight.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), who seems to believe that quality is to be found in the public schools. This is the old idea on which the Tory Party has lived for so long. The Tory Party is, it is true, seeking to foster the privilege which attaches to the old school tie of the public school. It is the negation of equality of opportunities that we should be able to talk of privileged sectors in education today. I believe that the hon. Gentleman has missed an opportunity to deal with the matters which are disturbing those concerned in education at present. There are confusion and crisis in education, as the House well knows.

I enjoyed the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. If I may say so without patronage, he is a very pleasing speaker. I, as a schoolmaster, give him full marks, but who would have believed from his speech that there was trouble in the world of education? I have never heard a Minister speak at a time of such crisis as this in education without one word to reveal that he is aware that in every schoolroom in the land there is indignation, and in every local education office, there is resentment. The Parliamentary Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box for three-quarters of an hour without making any reference to it. If this is indicative of the understanding of the Ministry of Education today, small wonder that we are in a crisis.

I want to refer to the school building programme. I endeavoured, thanks to the courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary in giving way, to raise the question of the six counties in the Principality of Wales—largely rural counties, it is true—which have been told that in 1964–65 they shall not replace one school in the whole of their area. The Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) referred to the inquiry into the state of our schools which was undertaken by the National Union of Teachers. The schools which are without adequate sanitation, with the old earth closet, are largely in the rural areas. It is monstrous that in 1963 the Government should tell six Welsh counties, "We are so poorly off that we cannot afford for a single child in your areas to be rehoused in a better school in 1964–65".

If I may refer briefly to a constituency case, the case of the Llandaff Church School, in the City of Cardiff, has been submitted year after year after year to successive Ministers of Education. I have been requested by the Cardiff Education Committee to raise this question today. The chairman of the committee happens to be an ornament of the party opposite. He is a gentleman whom I have fought on two occasions at General Elections. I only say that so that the House shall realise that criticisms are coming from Conservatives in the country who know something about education and who are appalled at the mix-up of the priorities of the present Ministry of Education.

In Llandaff, the site has been bought, the land is available, the local authority is eager to go ahead, and believes that it could proceed, but the Minister has said that he knows best what is good for Cardiff and that the authority should not proceed with this Church school. I ask him to consider this case afresh. Without developing the argument further, I urge him to consider the very special circumstances involved, because I consider that further consideration by the Ministry is necessary.

The Parliamentary Secretary was pleased to tell us that 40 per cent. of the entrants to teacher training colleges last year had two A-levels or more. I agree that this is a high level. These are all people who are capable of taking a good degree. No hon. Member will deny that any high school student who takes two good A-levels is not good university material and, given an opportunity, would take a good degree. This demolishes the case for the Ministry delaying much longer facing up to the fact that teacher training colleges which keep such high calibre students for three years should be entitled to give them a degree when they leave. It is unreal to say that while those who are lucky enough to get into a university can, after three years, take a degree, equally qualified young people who spend three years in a teacher training college must come out with a lesser qualification and, thereby, suffer financially all the days of their teaching careers.

The Minister has really established our case. He seemed to think, from all the figures he poured upon us, that he was doing all he could to recruit the right number of teachers. His faithful friend from the back benches, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West, can always be relied upon these days to rush to the defence of his Front Bench. I do not know why—

Mr. Longden

I hope that the Chief Whip will note that remark.

Mr. Thomas

—he always gets up to defend his Front Bench these days. He also poured out statistics indicating, somehow or other, that the target of the Ministry was adequate to our needs.

But what is the truth? The Minister will confirm that on present figures he does not expect, by the mid-1970s, to have brought the size of classes down to 40 in the primary and 30 in the junior schools. Am I not right in saying that the ambition of the Government is to mark time with the size of classes for the next decade and a half? I invite hon. Members opposite—and I accept that some of them know a good deal about education—to join me in criticising the Ministry because its targets are not high enough.

From where are we to recruit our teachers? It is a sorry fact that only eight out of every 100 boys and girls in Britain stay on for full-time education until they are 18 years old. It is from that 8 per cent. that all the professions—the nationalised industries, the Civil Service, and so on—must recruit. The Minister can check these figures, but I am sure that he will find that my calculation is right. Out of that 8 per cent. only 4 per cent. reach universities. Further, an examination of these figures reveals the appalling fact that a very low proportion of those who stay on until 18 are the children of manual workers.

It is still important in this country for one to have money if one's child is to stay longer at school. That is why there is so much privilege on the benches opposite. It is not preaching class war to acknowledge that there is a sector of our national life whose children can stay on until they are 18, 19 or even 20. They can go to the public schools or universities. There is another sector, nearly all of whose children are out of full time education before they are 18; yet despite this Britain needs all the latent skill and talent of her people. We do not know how much ability is being lost.

Mr. Curran

Does the hon. Member believe that parents should be forbidden from buying their children's education?

Mr. Thomas

No, not at all. I thought that the hon. Member knew me better than that.

What I think is appalling is that the State should provide such a low standard of education that those who are well off in life should be able to buy for their children a privilege that should be available for all. I believe that many of our young people are being denied the opportunity of going further with their education. We might take a leaf out of the book of some of the Communist countries in this respect, for they at least ensure that all the talent of their people is developed.

Sir E. Boyle

I have looked the figures up and I entirely agree with the hon. Member about the importance of this question. His figure of 8 per cent. is rather behind the times, because if he will look at page 24 of the Ministry's statistics he will see that the right figure is now 9.9 per cent. for full-time students in schools.

Mr. Thomas

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It seems that I was 1 per cent. out. [An HON. MEMBER: "Slightly more."] I was a history master, not a mathematics teacher. In any case, the Minister's intervention does not in any way detract from the argument I am advancing. It still means that there is a privileged elite who are buying privileges for their children.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Has my hon. Friend ever doubted that?

Mr. Thomas

No, but we must not cease to point it out.

We hear a lot of talk these days about there being a broad highway of opportunity for all people of ability and that no young man or woman is denied the chance of going all the way with his or her educational abilities. That is a lot of poppycock. We are behind most civilised countries in the way in which we allow snobbery and privilege to play a part in our education services.

Mr. A. Bourne-Arton (Darlington)

I am following the hon. Member's argument with interest. Is he arguing that too few children stay in full-time education in the sixth forms of our grammar schools until they are 18 years of age? How are children under-privileged if they do not—those who could benefit—take advantage of the excellent facilities in our grammar schools?

Mr. Thomas

I will put it as simply as I can. The plain truth is that to stay at school until 18 presents an economic crisis for many working-class homes today. The only way to increase the figure the Minister gave—the 9 per cent., or slightly over—to 20 per cent., as I believe it should be, is for the Government to face up to the need for adequate maintenance allowances in secondary schools. That would at once increase the pool of ability available for us to recruit for the teaching and other professions. It is not only a matter of social justice, but of elementary human rights for the individuals who are concerned.

The Minister of Education came to office—and, for that matter, so did his Parliamentary Secretary—with much good will; an astonishing degree of good will from the education world.

He knows that the National Union of Teachers and other educational bodies, the local education authorities, and right hon. and hon. Members on these benches, gave a warm welcome to his appointment. No Minister, during the past ten years, has started off with more good will than the right hon. Gentleman. It is six months ago since he became Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Twelve months."] I take the average and say eight months. Eight months ago, I was one who had high hopes of the right hon. Gentleman. I said so in the House and I said so, as some of my hon. Friends know, in their constituencies, to the teachers.

As the Minister knows, I paid high tribute to him in various parts of the country. I respected his moral courage on another occasion, and I have always respected his ability. But the Minister has completely dissipated that good will. He has been irresponsible, to an astonishing degree, in his relationships with other people equally responsible with himself for the conduct of education in this country.

Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that the teaching profession is an able profession, that it has always co-operated on major issues with the Ministry? Have not local authorities co-operated with the Ministry? How does the Minister expect to recruit teachers and to have the help of the teaching profession in recruiting teachers when he himself behaves rudely and inconsiderately to their elected representatives who serve them on the Burnham Committee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am able to substantiate what I say, and I am speaking with due care for every word that I utter.

The Minister of Education, I believe, has every right to take his place in Burnham. He provides a lot of the money—well, let him be there. But he did not say, at the beginning of the last Burnham negotiations, "I want to take my part in the negotiations." However, he is saying it now. He is imposing his will, as I shall show in a moment. But the Minister had his representative sitting at the table for every word of the deliberations that went on for seven months and the Minister knew, as well as Sir Ronald Gould and Sir William Alexander, every stage that was reached in the negotiations on teachers' salaries.

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. Gentleman may possibly, I think quite unwittingly, be giving in two respects an untrue impression. The first is that I have no representative on the Burnham Committee. I have two assessors present, but they are not my representatives, and they are not, in any case, empowered to speak on my behalf.

The other point is this. I say categorically that I had absolutely no indication at that time, or any means of knowing, that the provisional agreement that was reached on 24th January would be reached on that date. I had an account of what had happened at the previous meeting in December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a gap of some weeks, and I had absolutely no means at all of knowing that the provisional agreement that was reached would, in fact, be reached.

Mr. Thomas

The Minister has made a very important statement. The Minister's assessors, as he calls them, were there and he will not pretend to the House that he is not normally aware of the stages in the negotiations at the Burnham Committee, as he has just revealed that he was up to December. Why his assessors did not tell him what went on in January, I do not know.

Sir E. Boyle

They told me what had happened at the December meeting. There was then a gap before the January meeting. I had absolutely no means of gauging what would take place at the January meeting. I had no knowledge beforehand of what provisional agreement would be arrived at on that date.

Mr. Thomas

The Minister is getting worse and worse. What he is admitting is that he was kept fully informed of the seven months' negotiations and that it was only about the last meeting, when agreement was reached—he could not be told in advance what people were going to negotiate; not unless he is a dictator—that he did not know what happened. The Minister knew the results of that January meeting very quickly. He had them in his possession for many weeks, and what did he do?

I suggest to the House and to the Minister that he behaved in a thoroughly irresponsible manner by withholding his intention to reject the scales until after the special conference of the National Union of Teachers. He knew, the country knew, that this conference was to be held. It cost the union about £10,000 to call the conference at Croydon. It was a complete waste of time, because we were trying to get our members to ratify proposals that were non-existent. But Sir Ronald Gould and the Executive of the National Union of Teachers had never an inkling from the Minister, not a hint, that he would reject the proposals. He let them go ahead, and two or three days after the conference he dropped his bombshell. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to have the good will of the teaching profession when he works with honourable people in this way?

Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman submitted his proposals to the Burnham Committee. I hasten to tell him that I have been informed within the last hour that the National Association of Schoolmasters has published the details of the statement that he made. I have heard—and I invite the Minister to his feet on this—that it is the Minister's intention to publish them tomorrow.

Sir E. Boyle

After this debate.

Mr. Thomas

Is it true that the Minister will publish the details of these proposals tomorrow? Since he made them yesterday, why are they not published in time for this debate? Was the Minister trying to avoid facing up to the matter? Will the Minister tell me whether it is true that these figures are to be published tomorrow?

Sir E. Boyle

I did not send my proposals to the Burnham Committee yester- day. I sent them a week ago, with a confidential letter. I had been accused before of treating the Burnham Committee in a rough manner, and, therefore, I said that I would not publish anything until the Burnham Committee had a full chance to consider them. I received the Burnham Committee's answer at approximately seven o'clock yesterday evening, and in view of the debate today I took the view, I think perfectly fairly, that I would not have time fully to consider the Burnham answer, which was a technical one, before this afternoon's debate. As soon as I have had time to consider the Burnham answer, I will arrange for publication of the report.

So far as the National Association of Schoolmasters is concerned, I have heard what has happened, and only this afternoon it has been made plain to the National Union of Teachers that, of course, they could send their scales to their own members under the ordinary confidential rule. There is absolutely nothing more to it than that. I have not been trying to hide it from this debate at all. It was merely that I had not had time to consider a letter that had been sent to me last night.

Mr. Thomas

Of course, I accept that statement, but now that the news is out I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have told us what his proposals are to help the recruitment of teachers. He has told the profession that he thinks the salary of £650 a year for young teachers, proposed by the united Burnham Committee is too much, and wants to reduce it to £630 a year. The Minister, who talks much about the criteria for giving extra for posts of new responsibility in his new award, gives no added increment for the degree. I think that I am right in saying that.

The responsibility allowance for head teachers is 9 per cent. on the small level and 6 per cent. on the large level. It is quite clear that of the 115,000 teachers who hold posts of special responsibility in our schools today, 95,000 will, under the plans that the Minister submitted yesterday—which the Burnham Committee has unanimously rejected—get £30 or less, and a great many of them will be losing £30 under another part of the Minister's proposals. Thousands and thousands of teachers about whom the Minister has said he felt it necessary to smash the Burnham proposals will get no increase at all.

The local authorities have, therefore, once again joined with the teachers to tell the Minister that he is on the wrong tack. If we are to recruit more teachers, the Minister must change his tack. Unfortunately, I think that he has already gone too far in breaking up relationships, built up by others over many years, between the teachers, the local authorities and the Ministry of Education.

Over the past decade, crisis after crisis has brought teachers demonstrating to this House. During the last few years, we have seen university professors and lecturers queueing up to see Members of Parliament because of the educational and financial policy of Her Majesty's Government. Tomorrow, we shall see around this House a few thousand more teachers who have a sense of burning injustice. I only hope that members of the teaching profession will at last learn the lesson that they are always pushed around by that side of the House—that, at bottom, this is a political matter—and I hope that their memory will last until the General Election.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

I cannot follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in all the details that he has learned, presumably from the "tape", since I have not had the advantage of that information, but I hope that he is not trying to create the impression that the entire teaching profession is opposed to the Minister. I have no doubt that most right hon. and hon. Members have read letters in the responsible Press and in technical weekly journals fully supporting the Minister's proposals.

I think that I am correct in saying that all hon. Members have today received a letter from the Incorporated Association of Head Masters, but in case there are any who have not yet had time to read their post, I will just read the last paragraph, which states: The Association recognises the importance of the basic scale. At the same time we have long believed it to be good national strategy to develop a range of highly paid posts at the top of the tree which will attract men and women of first-class distinction who command similar or better emoluments in other types of employment. The Association recently accepted with some reluctance the proposed Burnham Agreement. But in the present situation the Association recognises the wisdom of the Minister's advice that the Burnham Committee should now re-examine its conclusions in the light of his emphasis on the importance of payments to highly qualified teachers holding critical top posts of responsibility in the schools. It is interesting that even Sir Ronald Gould, in a recent letter to The Times, did not deny that Burnham itself should be reconstituted. I do not think that anyone attempts to argue against the desirability of the Minister from now on playing an important part in Burnham discussions. It really is intolerable that the purse that finds more than half the money can have no say whatsoever in the negotiations until an agreement has been reached. The statement made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West that the present Burnham Committee in these recent negotiations had no knowledge whatever of the Minister's thoughts on the subject really does not bear examination, for the simple reason that in the previous difficulties, when Lord Eccles was Minister of Education, the views of the Government and the policy of differentials was well known, and it must then have been obvious to everyone taking part in future Burnham discussions that the Government's policy was to give higher differentials for greater skills—

Mr. G. Thomas

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the National Union of Teachers, and the teachers' side of Burnham, are not opposed to differentials for posts of special responsibility, but because, in recent awards, the young teacher at the bottom of the scale has been left behind it was felt that his turn must now come? The teachers are very anxious to give more to people in posts of special responsibility if the Minister will find the money.

Mr. Cooper

As I said when I began, I do not propose to argue these new proposals with the hon. Gentleman because I have not seen them.

I should like, at this stage, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on a really first-class speech. It is high time that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench ceased being mealy-mouthed about the Government's record and started slapping down the Labour Party once in a while. The Government are promoting policies in almost every field of activity in an attempt to bring the country up to date, and all the opposition we get everywhere is from a reactionary, old-fashioned and out-or-date Labour Party. Signpost For The Sixties is the modern Bible of hon. Members opposite—unfortunately, they have forgotten to tell us in which century it is supposed to be. It is an impertinence for the Opposition to table this Motion of censure, particularly when one recalls their appalling record in education when in Government. I can well understand them being very sensitive when that sore is touched.

Let me quote one or two figures. I know all about the story of, "It was the years after the war and we had a great deal to do". That is admitted, but I would point out that in those six years the Labour Government had at their disposal the full paraphernalia of Socialist controls. They controlled building and industry from top to bottom, and appropriations and allocations throughout the country. The Labour Government said that such planning would provide a new heaven on earth, but they failed to do so—failed dismally. Hon. Gentlemen opposite now wish to hang the same sort of albatross round the neck of the British people if we ever have a Labour Government again.

Let us see what the Labour Party did, and why hon. Members opposite are so sensitive. In six years of a Labour Government, new schools completed averaged 110 a year; our average has been 481. When they were in power, they provided an average of 101,000 places a year; we have never provided less than ¼ million in any one year. Today, we have been told about cuts in expenditure. Let us examine those cuts. In 1946–47, the Labour Government spent £217 million on education. In 1951, when we came to power, that expenditure was £381 million in the very first year. Today, it is £1,111 million.

Mrs. Slater

What about increasing costs?

Mr. Cooper

That point can be dealt with quite easily as time goes on. There has been no comparable advance in the education service of the country at any previous period in our history under any Government. This is a record of which we should be proud, and we should not be mealy-mouthed about proclaiming it in the House of Commons.

The proposals totalling £300 million in the 1958 White Paper have been practically all completed, and I do not recall that any right hon. or hon. Member opposite made any serious criticism of the extent of that building programme. It was thought to be a reasonable programme and to be within the ability of the nation to deal with it. What are the proposals which have been put forward and which are the subject of the Opposition's Motion of of censure? The proposals put forward by the local authorities for this one year—not a five-year programme—total £240 million, or roughly what we had been taking four years to spend.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) quoted the Economist in his aid. I will also quote it in my aid. If the hon. Member will be kind enough to refer to page 1124 of the issue of 23rd March, he will find these words: What happens is that every year local education authorities send to the Minister of Education a set of proposals which they know that no minister could fit inside any national budget; as their programmes will never see the light of day, they can thus appear progressive in ratepayers' eyes without attacking ratepayers' pockets—and, for a Labour council there is the added advantage that the bigger their 'proposals' the bigger the 'cut' that the wicked Tories must make. This is the situation. It is all very well to go electioneering when the municipal elections are a couple of months ahead, but one day, which I hope will be many years hence, a Labour Party may form the Government. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite will then have to face the realities of life and the apportioning of the nation's resources.

Let the House think of the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members opposite in the House over the last few months. Today, we on this side of the House are told to spend more money on schools and on teachers. A few weeks ago we were being reviled because the housing programme was said to be inadequate and we were told that it should be pushed up to a total of 400,000 houses. A little while before that we had a rugged debate because the hospital programme was said to be not going along as fast as it should be, and a little earlier than that we had a massive debate on the roads programme.

Where in heaven's name do right hon. and hon. Members opposite think that all this money and all these resources are to come from to do all these things? It is all very well to lie back in the luxury of irresponsibility as the Opposition. We on this side of the House are the Government. We have to face the responsibilities of the times in which we live and we have to apportion the nation's resources properly.

Part of the Opposition's Motion asks that adequate steps be taken to recruit a sufficient number of teachers. When the Conservative Party took office, there were 215,000 teachers. Today, there are 279,000, which is a fair step-up in that period. Hon. Members should try to understand some of the facts about what is going on now in the education service. The number of students admitted annually to courses of teacher-training has risen from 15,000 in 1951 to 21,000 in 1961, and at present there are no fewer than 48,000 students in colleges. When the present £44 million expansion programme is completed in 1966–67 the number of students will be about 65,000, and by 1970 there will be as many as 80,000. These are not insignificant figures. They are a very considerable advance on anything that has been done before.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke about oversize classes. Perhap he has not the figures before him of what is happening. When the Conservative Party took office, no fewer than 49.5 per cent. of all children were being educated in oversize classes. Today, the figure is 34.6 per cent. Nobody denies that the figure is still bad, but it is a substantial improvement on the conditions which obtained when we took office. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) have said, and nobody would deny it, that although enormous advances have been made there remains very much more still to be done. I should like to emphasise to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North that not only has there been this big reduction in the number of children in over-sized classes, but that this reduction has been achieved at a time when the school population has increased by no less than 1¼ million.

One direction in which Her Majesty's Government must provide over the years an increasing proportion of their resources is the construction of new universities from which we shall find ultimately the future professors, the top scientists, and the men who will be heading the new training colleges. It is from the development and cultivation of our brains that the country will be able in future to earn its living in a difficult world.

But what is the policy of the Labour Party when it comes to higher education? My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West has already drawn attention to part of the leading aricle in The Times on his matter, but there was one paragraph which he did not quote. Referring to the same Labour Party programme, it states: Every now and then one of the genuinely difficult issues which have to be resolved in this field of policy is allowed to obtrude, to be disposed of in a few sentences of breath-taking superficiality. The fact is that when it comes down to precise details the Labour Party is quite incapable at this time of promoting any policy, whether for education or for the economy, which makes any sort of sense. Instead of censuring the Government for their educational policy, we should congratulate them on their outstanding achievements, which are unmatched by any previous Government in our history.

6.49 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

I would make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper). I agreed with one sentence in it when the hon. Member cautiously hazarded the prophecy that a Labour Government would be taking over some time in the future. We on this side of the House have been attacked today for effrontery. This is the last charge that should come from a party which continues to hang on to power when it finds it very difficult to get a third place in a by-election.

I hope that some day in the House we shall be able to discuss education itself—and how we can achieve the quality of education which is vital if Britain is to survive the struggles ahead. We have, however, first to win certain elementary battles, and it is a matter on which both sides of the House should agree that certain of these battles have not yet been won. We have not won the battle of decent school buildings for all our school pupils. Only blind complacency would suggest that we have. We have not won the battle for proper sized classes for all our school children. We have not won the battle for an adequate supply of teachers. We have not won the battle to give equal opportunity as between the 6 million children who go to our State schools and the 250,000 who go to private schools. It is in this atmosphere that I have something to say about some of the events connected with this year's school building programme and the supply of teachers.

It seems to me certain that this cannot be an election year. Successive Ministers of Education have had a "stop and go" programme for school building, and this year we have imposed the cuts which the Parliamentary Secretary tells us are not cuts. The stop, of course, comes in non-election years, and the green light is shown always in election years.

It is a matter of fact, not argument, that practically every local authority in the country has seen its programmes slashed to ribbons this year. I shall not speak of that in detail. I do not speak of the slashing of the programme in my own city, the authority of which is Labour-controlled and where it might be thought that protest was politically inspired. Hampshire, which is Conservative-controlled, is a typical progressive and expanding county. All its school building programmes ever since the war have largely been swallowed up in providing schools for new housing areas. The remnant of this year's programme, after the Minister has cut it to about half, consists chiefly of expenditure on schools going to the new housing areas which we are establishing as part of our help to the city of London.

Hampshire, like other local authority areas in England, has been compelled, year after year, and will be compelled this year, to neglect the old and shabby schools. One of the Minister's own supporters, speaking of Leicester in the debate last Thursday, said: Leicestershire is a veritable museum of mediaeval school buildings."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1963; Vol. 674, c. 789.] What is true of Leicestershire is true of some schools under almost every local authority in the country.

I welcome the expansion of the training college programme which the Minister recently announced—the third crash programme, which followed the second one, which followed the first. Our criticism of this programme, as of previous programmes, is that it has come too late. Any hon. Member who turns up HANSARD for the last ten years will find that from this side of the House we have been asking for such programmes as the one of which the Parliamentary Secretary was so proud today years ahead of the time when the Government were prepared to give it.

There never was a time, I think, when more people in Britain were conscious of the need for and the importance of expanding British education. The school population has been expanding since the war, the first bulge being followed by the second. Anyone with any sense knows that this will be followed by an even more frightening third bulge when those who were children in the first bulge have their children. This being so, it is certain that teachers will continue to have to work under difficulties, for years to come, as they have done since the war.

The first bulge overcrowded the primary schools, with a peak year in 1957. Now, the peak has hit the top of the secondary schools, with just under half of all our children in secondary schools being taught in over-size classes and with the sixth forms crowded with young students who will not be able to go to university, although they merit places there, because there are not enough places for them. All this puts a great burden on the teaching profession.

However, as the Parliamentary Secretary hinted today, the second peak for the primary schools is on its way. In 1957, the number of children in primary schools was 4.4 million. In 1969, it will again, by the Ministry's own forecast, be 4.4 million, a difference of merely 20,000. The secondary school population will rise from 2 million in 1951 to 5 million in 1980. It is against this upsurge that the Minister and previous Ministers have struggled. Some of the difficulties have been unforeseeable, but some of them have been due to the policies of the Government themselves.

This year, the year of intermission, we face one of the most critical phases in this long struggle. I should have thought that, this year of all years, it was necessary for a Minister of Education to convince the teaching profession that he holds it in esteem, that he concedes it professional status, that he wants good will between himself, as supreme director of education, and the humble class teacher on whose work in the schools of England day by day the whole structure of education depends.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) has pointed out that we welcomed the right hon. Gentleman as the new Minister. The whole education world recognises his ability and his qualities. But at present he seems to cast himself as Rehoboam following Solomon. Lord Eccles chastised the teachers with whips, but the present Minister will chastise them with scorpions.

I am one who has always held the almost heretical opinion that Lord Eccles was a greater friend of the teachers than they knew. I only say grimly that they now know, when they consider the present Minister, that I was right. I confess that I find it very difficult to understand what could compel the Minister in this year of crisis to go out of his way to attack the teachers and to anger them when there is no finance at stake. It seems almost as though the Government cannot help spoiling everything they touch. From Blue Streak to Burnham the pattern is the same—muddle and blunder.

My attack on the Minister is political, not personal. I interpose here to say how much I deplore, as all decent citizens do, the personal smears which the worst of the British Press has been using during recent days on some politicians, apparently sheltering behind the sacred slogan, "The freedom of the Press." There seems to be one standard of political controversy for Lobby correspondents and the decent newspapers of this country and no standard at all the others. It is possible to fight most bitterly without intruding into private lives, as, it seems to me, has been done disgustingly in recent months.

I charge the Minister, first, with destroying wage negotiating machinery, one of the wage negotiating bodies which Britain has built up over the last fifty years. He is not alone in this. Other Ministers have done the same thing. It seems to be part of Tory policy. About three years ago, there was the attack on wage negotiations for the lower grade health workers. Then came the attack on some humble workers in the Admiralty. Then came the attack on the nurses, after which was the first attack on the teachers by Lord Eccles, and now this one by the present Minister. It is the pursuit of a policy to lay down the kind of increase in reward which the Government think ought to be allowed to certain groups of British citizens—and this from a Government who have permitted the most shocking scandal of the century, the land racket, by which landowners are able to get year by year a fantastic increase in the tribute which they draw from the community.

The Burnham Committee which the Minister is almost destroying has an honourable record. It was set up after the First World War, and by 1920 Lord Burnham could write to Mr. Fisher, the first post-war President of the Board of Education: It has already succeeded in creating in the country at large a much clearer atmosphere and better temper. … It has grown up into an organisation on whose public spirit and statesmanlike quality you can confidently rely". This was from Lord Burnham, the first chairman, to Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Fisher, the great Minister and author of the 1918 Act, wrote to Lord Burnham in 1921 saying: A prospect has been opened up of closer and more effective co-operation between the agencies of central and local government in the service of public education". For forty years, both sides of Burnham had battled fiercely, the local authority representatives to control the financial advance in the cost of the teaching profession, the teachers to win what they have not yet won, that is, what they regard as an adequate financial reward for their profession. But in the end they have usually reached agreement, and in the end Ministers have usually accepted the proposals.

There may be a case for a Government putting a ceiling on a Burnham award. Incidentally, until this Government came along very few Ministers had attempted to do so. It was Lord Eccles who smashed the last overall award by Burnham of £47 million to some £40,500,000. I am not too happy about the State interfering in wage negotiations quite in this way. I do not think that it is quite a good thing that we should drive groups of workers one after the other into open combat and hostility with the State. Ultimately the Government must win, although one would hope that my comrades the French miners would win in their struggle with de Gaulle; but it is a bad thing for constitutional government if workers are driven into a position where they find that they are bargaining not with their employers but ultimately with the Government. It may be an excellent thing for a Government to have a giant strength, but it is tyrannous and dangerous to use it like a giant, and that is what the Minister has done.

This young Minister has gone much further than that. He has said to the Burnham Committee, "I accept the figure of £20,500,000, but my advisers and I know better than you do how to share it out." This is "Whitehall knows best" with a vengeance, and yet it comes from a representative of a Government which wrote to the County Councils Association when begging the Association to support the general grant in 1957—and I quote what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) quoted— … the Government genuinely desires to increase the independence of local authorities as far as it is possible to do in the world in which we live."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 1140.]

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

It is true that I quoted it, but I never said that believed it.

Dr. King

The last thing I would do would be to pray my right hon. Friend in aid of the Government.

It comes from a Government in which the present Home Secretary, defending the general grant, said: These changes are the price which will have to be paid and which will be worth paying to help make local government vigorous, popular and effective. We want to give members and staffs of local authorities a worthwhile job, not as puppets of Parliament, but as partners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th December, 1957; Vol. 579, c. 920.] The charge against the Minister is that he is making local authority representatives on the Burnham Committee the puppets which his right hon. Friend said he was anxious to prevent them from becoming.

I believe far more deeply than I can say in the unique British system of shared responsibility in education, in the marriage between local authorities and the Government. It is worth pointing out that the men and women who serve Britain on local councils are unpaid. They are devoted, and the best of them know the job that they are doing. Those who serve on education committees know more about their schools and their teachers than the Minister does. To me that is a truism, although I am beginning to suspect that it is heresy to the Ministry. When the Burnham Committee distributed the latest award along the chain of the teaching profession, it did so not idly but after a long period of discussion. Local authority representatives on the Burnham Committee have devoted many years of their lives to this intricate and complex problem which the Minister now seeks to unravel from outside, and I am certain that they must deeply resent, as I do, the impertinence of the Minister in stepping in and tearing up their proposals.

Many people share my disquiet at the growth of the power of the Executive. I believe that there is a Motion about this on the Order Paper, and certainly the subject has been broached in the House quite recently even so far as Parliament is concerned. When we were arguing about whether we should go into Europe, one of the arguments was that if we went in, in education especially we would have the growth of bureaucracy. We are, however, having the growth of the power of the central bureaucracy in education although we are not in Europe, and the Minister is now claiming to know which teacher should receive less and which more, which is only one step from the Ministre de l'Instruction publique who could boast that he knew what a teacher was doing in any particular class at any particular hour in France.

Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow, East)

The hon. Member is very fair-minded and is a most experienced educationist. In his attack on the Minister he cannot be altogether unmindful of the fact that the Minister's intervention has received approval in the columns as such widely divergent organs as The Times, the Economist, the Statist, the Daily Herald and the Daily Mirror.

Dr. King

I am not sure what that has to do with the argument. I wonder whether he and I are living in the same country if he thinks we are to reach the stags when the deliberations of the House of Commons are decided by quotations and counter-quotations from the Economist, which cancel out, and from The Times, which is not perfectly right about everything, even including its views on the dignity of the Press. We have to argue these things out for ourselves. I think that some of us are getting too Press-conscious.

I was saying that the Minister's intervention comes at the very time when from one end of England to the other local authority citizens are complaining of the increase in the rate burden and local authority councillors are complaining that most of the work they have to do in local government is shaped by the laws and the instructions of the Government.

So much for the local authorities. I think that we can understand the anger of the teachers. I know that the old Tory, like the old Roman, policy is "Divide and rule". The Minister must have hoped—and the quotation which his hon. Friend just made supported that hope—that if he offered more money to some teachers the teachers who were to get more money would back him against the teachers who were to get less. It is not surprising that the Association of Headmasters has come to the unanimous opinion that it is a good thing that money should be taken from poor young teachers and given to them. The head teachers' modestly think that they are worth every penny of it, and when people are selfish it is not to be unexpected.

The remarkable feature about the protest of the teachers today—and hon. Members will see evidence of it tomorrow —is that by and large this protest is an altruistic protest. The bulk of the Executive of the N.U.T. and the bulk of the men and women teachers who will come here tomorrow to protest against the action of the Minister are people who will lose by the Burnham proposals as compared with the Minister's. I can believe that the profession is at last becoming a profession when it is getting that kind of solidarity. I will quote part of a letter from the headmistress and staff of an infant school which says: We who have taught for many years do not wish our salaries raised at the expense of the young teacher, although we know our work justifies a high increment. These may be extraordinary sentiments which are alien to Tory philosophy and the materialist society in which we are living, but they are fine sentiments; these are the views of many of those in the profession whose affairs we are discussing. A deputy head writes to me: I am a deputy head with allowances accordingly. In previous salary negotiations I feel that I have been dealt with quite fairly and I wholeheartedly support the settlement agreed upon by the Burnham Committee. A letter signed by seven teachers from a school in Southampton says: We, the undersigned, who would stand to gain most by the implementation of the salary scheme which the Minister of Education proposes to impose, protest most strongly at his high-handed action. We are all most decidedly in favour of increases in our salaries, but we do not wish to obtain them at the expense of our colleagues. The Minister should note the new feeling which is emerging among the teaching profession.

I believe that what the Minister has done is a blow to the status of the teaching profession. I do not think that a profession can fix its own salaries. This is our own dilemma in the House. But I do think that a profession knows more about the internal structure of its corpus than anyone outside and knows where the shoe pinches hardest. The teaching profession, like the local authorities, has said that the greatest need at present beyond a peradventure is to give to the young entrant into the teaching profession a reasonable income. That reasonable income, which is proposed in the Burnham scale, the Minister is denying the young teacher.

I know that some hon. Members, misled by the expert work of the Public Relations Department of the Ministry of Education, have thought that the issue between the Minister and the Burnham Committee was that the Burnham Committee was egalitarian and democratic and that the Minister believed in rewarding talent and that the teachers did not. Perhaps I can speak with more personal knowledge of this than anyone in the House. During my time as a teacher I had at some time each of the differentials in question under the settlement. Before the war the head of a department in a large grammar school received £40 for that responsibility. He now receives £350. It is a matter of simple fact that every differential in the scale has increased at a rate greater than the basic scale has risen since 1945. No one knowing this could charge the Burnham Committee with being egalitarian or with failing to recognise the academic qualifications, length of service, and so on, which demand extra reward. But here let me enter a caveat—any amount of academic qualifications do not necessarily make a good teacher.

If it were humanly possible to discover who were our best teachers, I would be in favour of giving them almost the sky as their reward, but it is certain that we would find some of the best teachers in the infants schools just as we would find them in the sixth forms of the grammar schools.

My last quotation is from a letter from an infants school which reads: As teachers in an infants school we have very little opportunity of obtaining special posts which carry increases of salary. … We feel very strongly about this since primary teaching is of equal importance to secondary teaching. Our hours in school are fully occupied with teaching … we have no free periods and preparation of lessons must be done in the evenings. Our salaries depend on the basic scale. Therefore, we feel that the Burnham Committee were fully justified in raising the basic scale to £650. After three years' training this is a very poor salary compared with industrial and other workers". The Government have made many blunders. For some of them there is a defence. For this—

Mr. Tiley

I know that the hon. Gentleman has a deep knowledge of these matters, but, in comparing teachers' salaries with those in industry, it is fair to point out the wonderful pension arrangements which are applicable to the teachers and which, I believe, at the moment are running at a deficit of about £250 million, all of which will be made up by the taxpayers. It is right that we should bear these things in mind in considering salary levels.

Dr. King

I agree I have never attempted to do the Burnham Committee's job for it, as the Minister has tried to do. There is quite a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. We want the support of the House and indeed, of the Minister again himself in this. All that I have tried to do is to show that there are certain misconceptions which must be cleared up and certain principles which we wish to establish. Among those principles are the ones which I have tried to enumerate. I will not deal any further with the issues at stake. I merely say that I think that the Minister can end the ill-will which he has engendered in the last few weeks by accepting the basic minimum proposed by the Burnham Committee and by giving the extra differentials which he desires to give by providing the necessary extra £2 million or £3 million which the headmasters and the rest of the teaching profession would welcome. I do not think that the House should let the right hon. Gentleman placate the highly qualified teachers who want a higher income by robbing the young entrants to the profession. It is not too late for him to change his mind. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to think again. He must surely want the good will of the teaching profession. Let him learn to deserve it.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Politics is not a particularly generous calling, and I would not expect even such a kindly man as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) to pay tribute to the fact that during the past decade there has been a staggering improvement in the educational and financial system of this country. I would not expect him to pay tribute to the fact that we have been able to introduce a three-year teacher training programme. I would not expect him to draw attention to the fact that the recruitment of teachers has been such during the last decade that, although the number of children has increased by about 20 per cent., the size of the teaching profession has increased by 35 per cent. and there has been a real decrease in the number of oversize classes.

I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to call attention to the fact that this country devotes a higher proportion of its national income to education than any country in the Common Market, or to the fact that the teacher-pupil ratio in primary schools and at the junior secondary level, and, indeed, in the universities, is better in this country than it is in France, Germany, or the United States.

I would not expect that the Opposition should try to paint a balanced picture. But I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was peculiarly ungenerous and that the picture which he attempted to draw was one of unrelieved monotony which did not fit the facts at all.

I admit, however, that our education system is facing a crisis—a two-pronged crisis. On the one hand, there is the break-down of, or, at least, the need drastically to modify, the machinery for negotiating teachers' salaries. I intend to return to that later. On the other hand, there is the fact that the increase in rates which is largely caused by the tremendous rise in expenditure on education has produced a growing demand that a growing proportion of expenditure on education should be put on the Exchequer and that the sharing of this expenditure between the local authorities and the Government should be considered again. I support this view.

There are items in our national educational bill which should be a great deal more local than they are—for example, minor capital works. In my own County of Kent, this part of the educational programme has been cut during the past year from an estimated £880,000 to £260,000, which has then been raised to £280,000. There is a great deal to be said for making minor capital works much more the responsibility of local education authorities and of local finance and the rates.

Again, there is an immense amount of misunderstanding concerning new school building and major capital works. I was glad that in his forceful speech this afternoon my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained the system in detail, but the fact remains that there is still immense ignorance in the country as a whole and, indeed, frustration amongst those who administer education.

Other hon. Members have been talking of their constituency problems. I merely cite the example of the Penge Secondary School for Boys, which was programmed for rebuilding sixteen years ago. When the money has been available, there has not been a site for it. When it seemed that the site and the money would both be available, the project no longer found a place in the Ministerial programme. Thus, there has been a kind of stately minuet of procrastination and recrimination between the local education executive, the county council and the Ministry. Certainly, I would not, in the course of a brief speech tonight, wish to put forward alternative proposals, but we need to have a new look at the whole system and see whether better arrangements cannot be devised and whether we cannot avoid the idea that major increases in school building programmes are continually put forward and misrepresented as cuts.

The main problem with which we are dealing in this debate is the question of teachers' salaries and the machinery for negotiating them. I wholeheartedly support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. G. Thomas

Does the hon. Member agree with the Minister's latest demand that he not only sits at the table and negotiates teachers' salaries, but should also keep for himself a veto over those negotiations in which he has taken part? He has said it in confidence and it ought to be brought out into the public eye.

Mr. Goodhart

I will be coming to the question of how we should pay teachers' salaries and how they should be negotiated. It seems to me to be quite mad, however, that when the Minister is directly responsible for finding 60 per cont. of the bill for teachers' salaries, as he is now, he should come into the negotiations which decide the salary levels only indirectly and round the corner.

I am in entire agreement with those sections of the educational world—and they are numerous—who concede that the Minister must sit in at the negotiations. Even if my right hon. Friend had allowed the present disallowed settlement to go forward, I would have had to suggest that it should be modified.

I do not believe that the last Burnham settlement fitted the facts of the educational picture. The extraordinary position in which we are placed is that although recruitment is going exceedingly well, and although tens of thousands of young men and women are coming out of the teacher training colleges, vast numbers are leaving extremely quickly.

My eye was caught by a reply given on 6th March by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mrs. Hill), in which he said: A three-year course for a woman student at a teachers' training college at present costs about £2,000 … From next September, the great majority of new women teachers will be aged 22, having trained for three years. Thus, while at present it is reckoned that 57 out of each 100 women will still he teaching after four years' service and 21 after nine years, the corresponding figures for later in the decade show a reduction to 47 after four years' service and 19 after nine years."—[OFEICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 70.] In other words, more than half of the women going to the teacher training colleges and having this vastly expensive course will have left within five years and almost 80 per cent. will have left within ten years.

Dr. King

Even if there were anything in this argument, which the Minister has not dared to use, even if it were true about the women who left, why should we penalise the thousands of young women who make the teaching profession their life's work, and why should we penalise the young men in the same way?

Mr. W. R. van Straubenne (Wokingham)

They are not penalised.

Mr. Goodhart

In reply to the hon. Member for Itchen, may I say that that is not my argument. I consider it to be senseless to pour the funds that are available on to these fly-by-night females, who, before they have made any repayment to our society for this expensive education, have gone flying off, with twigs in their beaks, to make nests of their own. It is silly to use our scant resources for teachers' salaries in that direction instead of increasing still further the emoluments and salaries of those who intend to make their career in the teaching profession. It is this that would encourage people to stay on.

Again, we should be considering the question of family allowances. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, about two-fifths of the married women who leave the profession will, it is hoped, return. Perhaps the introduction of family allowances, which, I see, is now advocated by Lord Eccles now that he has left this House, would encourage these young women to return more quickly and in larger numbers. This really is essential if we are to meet the challenge of the future.

I believe that my right hon. Friend must play an integral part in the Burnham negotiations of the future, and that we should take the opportunity presented by the breakdown of the existing machinery to transfer the responsibility for finding the salaries of teachers from the local authorities to the national Exchequer. Only in this way will we be able to meet the financial burdens of our education system that will grow over the years and maintain the tremendous rate of growth reached during the last decade of Conservative government.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

I shall reply later to some of the main points made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), so perhaps he will forgive me if I do not deal with them immediately.

The Motion specifically mentions buildings. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in my constituency I have a very great building problem. However, he has seen me privately about this and has received a deputation from my council. He knows that we are extremely dissatisfied and has come some little way to meet us.

The Motion also deals with the failure of the Government to attract sufficient teachers, while the Amendment talks about the increasing share of the national resources devoted to education and of the difficulty in staffing schools. Both buildings and teachers are extremely important but, as an ex-teacher, I do not think that they are equally important. I think that teachers are a good deal more important than buildings, important as these are.

Teachers are the first essential in an education system. But Government policy in recent years has done a great deal of damage—irreparable damage—to the prospects of assembling in this country a teaching force adequate, both in size and calibre, to meet the challenge of the future. This is particularly shown in the Government's attitude to the Burnham Committee. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd) threw the first stone at Burnham. His successor, now Lord Eccles, threw the second stone, and now the right hon. Gentleman has thrown the biggest of the lot in recent weeks.

The Burnham Committee unanimously rejected the Minister's policy on salaries. I raise the matter tonight—it is the only point I want to talk about—because there is now an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to think again and to see reason on this issue before it is too late. Thousands of teachers are coming to Westminster tomorrow from all parts of the country to lobby hon. Members and put their point of view on this, and it would be extremely unfortunate if a very strong appeal were not made to the right hon. Gentleman now to change his mind, to retreat or to reach the sort of compromise suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Dr. King).

What is the size of the teacher problem? It can be simply put. The right hon. Gentleman's own Advisory Council has suggested that even if we implement current policy without any other advance in educational thinking—that is, the reduction of classes to 30 pupils each and the raising of the school-leaving age to 16—by 1975 we will need 482,000 teachers. On present trends, with present training facilities and the way they are developing, we will be about 140,000 teachers short in order to implement even our current policies by 1975. In other words, we are to train over the next twelve years about 11,000 teachers a year, which is fewer than we shall need to implement the Government's present plans.

In view of all this, it seems rather silly for hon. Members opposite to point to the 2,000 young people who could not get places in the training colleges last year and say that the Minister's salary policy need not bother about attracting more young people into the profession. Of the 2,000 who could not get in last year, many, of course, would be excellent—there is no doubt of that—and many would be mediocre and have the bare minimum of classes. Indeed, I received a letter from a girl who could not get into a college last year, in which she complained bitterly. The letter contained six spelling mistakes. Thus we cannot assume that all the 2,000 were fitted to get in.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I cannot resist capping the hon. Member's story. I had a letter from a teacher complaining of my right hon. Friend's actions, and that contained seven spelling mistakes.

Mr. Short

There is urgent need for provision for more places in teacher training colleges. There is urgent need for attracting more people into teaching in each of the next twelve years. Even if every applicant last year had been suitable, we would need 8,000 more a year than we are getting.

What makes a profession such as teaching attractive? What must we do to make it attractive to young people? Attractiveness is a complex of many inter-related factors. The most important step would be the revaluation of the place of the teacher in society and the contribution he can make. I saw in today's Daily Mail two adjacent stories on the front page. The first was headed "Teachers" and said: Minimum up by £30 to £600 a year". The second was headed "Doctors" and said: Average up by £340 to £2,740 a year". We really do need a revaluation of the contribution our teachers make to society.

Mr. Bourne-Acton

I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to follow the error of the Daily Mail in quoting only one of the many basic scales on which teachers operate.

Mr. Short

I am not quoting basic scales. I am quoting the headlines used in the Daily Mail as evidence that the teachers are not accorded their rightful place in the scheme of things today.

Mr. Bourne-Acton

rose—

Mr. Short

Quite a number of hon. Members still wish to speak and I have already given way enough.

The revaluation of teachers in society involves many things. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) mentioned one close to my heart. We must end completely the out-of-date view of the teachers' own professional subject, education, held by so many university professors—in other subjects, of course—and officials of the Ministry. Education today is a subject which can stand on its own four legs, and universities should be giving first degrees in education. But not a single university in this country has yet got round to that, although many abroad are doing so. We should begin to do so at once.

When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister was Parliamentary Secretary, some years ago, I raised this matter on a number of occasions and he always rejected it. I am delighted, therefore, that the Labour Party, in its recent policy statement on education, has been doing some thinking in this direction. I look forward to the day when teacher training colleges will become colleges of education equal in status to the colleges of medicine at our universities and giving first degrees in education.

Re-evaluating the place of teachers in society also involves remuneration. Hon. Members opposite sometimes talk of the sense of vocation in teaching. That argument is usually used by people who do not want to pay teachers any more. When we talk about remuneration being attractive we mean the overall salary structure. We do not talk about the remuneration in the medical profession being attractive because one or two top-level surgeons get very high salaries. When we talk about it being attractive we mean the general overall picture of salaries in the medical profession.

Yet the Minister of Education has intervened and, in my view, destroyed the Burnham machinery, in order to make this very point, that differentials are all-important in making the teaching profession attractive, or he says he has. But the argument and the facts are so flimsy as to make this extremely difficult for me to believe.

Does the Minister really assert that his scales—we know now what they are because the N.A.S. has told us—will make teaching more attractive than those of the Burnham Agreement? Does the right hon. Gentleman really dare to assert that the Burnham Committee, since 1945, has not paid sufficient attention to differentials? Let me tell the Parliamentary Secretary that the two-year trained teacher minimum has gone up by 110 per cent. and the maximum by 135 per cent. The head teacher allowance has gone up by 150 per cent. at the minimum and 220 per cent. at the maximum.

The present Minister or Education has said this about Burnham: Salary settlements since 1945 have progressively improved the prospects and rewards for advancements within the profession by increasing the payments for longer training, higher qualifications and greater responsibility in relation to the basic scale. The Minister has said that about Burnham. Yet he is now destroying Burnham because he asserts that Burnham is not paying sufficient attention to the differentials.

The Burnham Committee has existed for forty years. It has worked happily and satisfactorily. But suddenly, in the last few years of this Government, for some reason or other, Burnham has become unsatisfactory and must be altered.

I think that at this moment and in this context it would be appropriate if I said how sorry are hon. Members on both sides of the House at the death of Mr. William Cove, the former Member of Parliament for Aberavon. He was in at the formation of Burnham, and it is rather tragic that he should have died in the year in which Burnham is being destroyed by the Minister. Mr. Cove gave a lifetime of service to education and we all regret his passing.

The Minister's function at Burnham was stated very well by the present First Secretary of State at the time of the passing of the 1944 Act and we should get it on the record. The right hon. Gentleman said: The functions of the Minister under Section 89 of the Education Act, 1944, are limited to approving or disapproving the scales of remuneration submitted to him by the Burnham Committee and, if he approves them, to making the order requiring local authorities to remunerate teachers in accordance with those scales. It was made quite clear when the Clause, which is now Section 89, was introduced in another place that it was so drafted as to leave no responsibility with the Minister for framing the scales or amending the scales submitted to him. Burnham worked on that basis, as I say, quite happily until the right hon. Member for Sutton Goldfield tried to cut the basic scale increases; until Lord Eccles, in 1961, dictated his new scales involving a £5½ million cut; and until this Minister has persisted in redistributing the £21 million award in favour of teachers at the higher end of the scale.

The right hon. Gentleman is doing this in spite of the fact that the present award is really part of a package deal for the peace that was patched up with Lord Eccles in 1961. The Parliamentary Secretary will recollect that the teachers agreed with the local authorities to accept the Eccles scales only if negotiations could take place for new scales to be paid on 1st April, 1963. Therefore, I think that teachers were entitled to expect that Burnham would be allowed to function on its normal lines. Yet the Minister of Education has intervened and refused to accept the unanimous decision of the Burnham Committee on the new scales. He has drawn up his own scales and says that he intends lo enforce them.

I see from the Press that the Minister of Education was interviewed recently by the teachers in his own constituency. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that he was the first Minister to intervene in Burnham on purely educational grounds. What arrant nonsense this is proved to be, when one sees the scales. It is a pity that they are not available now during this debate so that hon. Members might look at them. In the scales the Minister is delaying the assimilation of two-year trained teachers. Is that on educational grounds? The Minister is to reduce the amount proposed by the Burnham Committee for all two-year trained teachers up to about the age of 32 or 33. Is that on educational grounds?

In my view, to assert that this is on educational grounds is so ridiculous as to he quite unacceptable. Even three-year trained graduates get a reduction from what the Burnham Committee proposed for the first three years. They get no increase for the first three years and an increase of only £20 per annum for the next five years. It means that, in total, over all this period of eleven years they will receive £300 more. Is that on educational grounds? Does the Minister really feel that this will make any difference to anybody? I believe that it amounts to nothing more than sheer bad faith to the category of teachers who are concerned. They actually lose money. I think that hon. Members will agree, having studied the matter, that this amounts to nothing more than sheer bad faith.

The only logical assumption at which I can arrive is that the Minister of Education wishes to provoke a crisis in Burnham. This is in line with Government policy in dealing with other employees in the public sector. The Minister, when talking to the teachers in his own constituency, said: …it is not my intention to dictate the future of the negotiating machinery, but I think I should have a share in the new machinery and further discussions with the teachers' associations. Obviously, the Minister intends to do what Lord Eccles thought better of doing.

I wish to put a specific question to the Minister and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make a note of it. This is of tremendous importance to the teachers. Does the Minister want to be in the negotiations and to be the final arbiter as well? He was asked this during the discussion with the teachers in his constituency. He was accused of being both judge and juror who assumed a place in the negotiating machinery. He was asked whether he proposed to make provision for arbitration, and he replied that he "took the point", but that it was really a matter for negotiation.

Will the Minister please stop being "cagey" about this? The teachers want to know about it. I do not think that teachers would object to the Minister being in on the negotiations. But obviously, if he is in on negotiations, there must be some arbitration machinery at the end of the process. I wish to make clear that I have no right to speak for the teachers' organisations. But I think that no teachers' organisation would agree to the Minister's inclusion in the Burnham process, in the negotiations, unless the machinery also included adequate and trustworthy arbitration machinery.

I see from the Press that representatives of the National Association of Schoolmasters say that Parliament must be the final arbitrator. That means the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to the support of the National Association of Schoolmasters.

The Minister says that he wants to come in. What we want to know, on behalf of the bigger teachers' organisations, is whether he is prepared to agree to some independent arbitration machinery at the end of the process. At the moment, it appears that he wants to be in on the salary negotiations and also to be the judge and jury.

In spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary said in an intervention, I believe that the whole purpose of this operation is directed to the belief that the Burnham Committee has been too generous during the last few years. My view, and the view of most teachers, is that the purpose of ensuring that the Minister is in on the negotiations is to see that future Burnham awards will be less generous than they have been in the past.

I want to deal with the claim made by the Minister that he has public opinion behind him. He repeated this claim in the interview which I have quoted on a number of occasions. He said that what he meant was that he had the support of a large measure of the Press, including the Left-wing daily Press. There have been a number of leading articles on this matter, and some letters in support of the Minister from the few teachers who hope to gain at the expense of their younger colleagues.

Mr. Chataway

I must intervene if this charge is to be reiterated. Ought not the hon. Member to think about this? Will not hon. Members apposite concede that the teachers concerned believe that this is right for the profession, and that they are not acting in a spirit of self-interest, any more than are the younger teachers, in the view that they take?

Mr. Short

That may be so in some cases. The number of leading articles supporting the Minister has been amazingly small. In spite of the strenuous efforts which we know to have been made by the Minister's public relations officers behind the scenes in recent weeks, there has been remarkably little support for this action of the Minister. Some of the most influential newspapers have expressed a great measure of disagreement with the Minister—newspapers such as the Guardian, the Observer, the Sunday Telegraph, the Evening News and the Western Mail. Nearly all the support has been purely political, and has come from the newspapers that one would naturally expect to support the Minister.

The Times had two leading articles putting the Minister's point of view, but when the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, Sir Ronald Gould, wrote a letter putting the other side of the argument The Times would not publish it. It said, "We will give you 500 words." That was the attitude of a great newspaper which is supposed to be the pinnacle of justice, and the champion of the freedom of the Press. It refused to publish the reply from the National Union of Teachers.

The Daily Express published a leader and a feature article—I mention this because of the Minister's boasts about Press support—but when the public relations officer of the N.U.T. sent a reply to the Daily Express it printed only 82 words of that letter. One hon. Member opposite referred to the Daily Herald. Certainly, that newspaper supports higher salaries—for higher qualifications and responsibilities. So do we all, and so does the N.U.T., of which I have been a member since 1931. This has been N.U.T. policy for all those years. It has said that there should be no extra payment for sex, but that there should be for higher qualifications, longer service and greater responsibilities. What the hon. Member did not tell us was that the Daily Herald was extremely critical of the way in which the Minister has handled the situation.

In this matter The Times has played a pretty disreputable part. It asserted—it did not hint; it asserted—that the teachers were aware of the Minister's attitude. This is quite untrue. It is absolutely false, and The Times knows that it is. Sir Ronald Gould pointed out that this was untrue in the letter that The Times would not publish.

I ask another specific question on this matter. Is it a fact that the Minister interviewed two members of the Burnham Committee before the negotiations started—a member of the A.M.C. and the member of the C.C.A.? Could we be told whether the Minister did interview those two officials? If he did, they did not breathe a word of it to the Burnham Committee. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what happened. We are entitled to know. It is ridiculous of the Minister to claim that he has wide support in this matter.

As I see it, three issues arise from this crisis. They are all extremely relevant to the future of the teaching profession, but some of them have very much wider significance than that. First, young teachers, up to the age of 30 or 31 years of age, will not be paid adequately under the Minister's scales. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) about this. The starting point of the Burnham discussions was—as it always has been—the minimum salary and the starting point, which, according to the Burnham Committee, was £650 a year. As I see it, the failure to pay an adequate salary to young teachers will retard recruitment, especially in view of the modern habit of early marriage. This is at a time when we need about 10,000 extra teachers a year. That is the first consequence of the crisis.

The second one concerns my hon. Friends who are involved in their own trade unions. This is an attack upon collective bargaining. The battle which the N.U.T. is fighting here is a battle of all the trade unions, especially in the public sector. The Minister of Education intends to get in on the negotiations and he wants also to be the final arbiter. What kind of collective bargaining is this? It is a mere travesty of it.

The third consequence is that the Minister will destroy the employer-employee relationship which exists now between teachers and local authorities. This is one of the best features of our education system. During the passing of the Local Government Act, 1958, many expressions of faith in local government were made by hon. Members opposite. Many of them asserted that the men in Whitehall did not know best, and that local government should be given its head. I started to look up quotations from speeches made in the proceedings on that Bill, but I found so many that I soon stopped. If hon. Members care to read the reports they will find literally scores of quotations from hon. Members opposite saying that local government should be given more power.

Their policy since then has been to weaken local government, and this interference is one of the biggest steps so far. It not only alters the status of the teacher, but it takes away something very valuable from local government.

It is not too late for the Minister to retreat. I know that it is a difficult thing for a Minister to do, but it is not too late for him to tell the faceless men behind him that he will not see our education system destroyed in this way. Yesterday, the Burnham Committee rejected his proposed scales. If he wishes to persist in this folly he has no option but to bring in legislation to enforce his new scales. We will fight this every inch of the way, and so will the teachers.

What will be the result? We shall have an embittered and angry profession. It is that now, but that will be its permanent attitude if the right hon. Gentleman persists in this proposal. The result would be a weakened education system. That system is nothing if it is not a partnership comprising teachers, local authorities and the Government. It would weaken the structure of local government. What would the Minister achieve? He would achieve the opportunity to save £2 million or £3 million once every few years.

Will the policy which the Minister is pursuing attract the right numbers and the right kind of new entrants to the profession? Of course it will not. If we say that we want to attract teachers up to 30 when they want to get married, but they are to have less than the Burnham award, obviously new entrants will not be attracted. I appeal to the Minister to abandon this policy before it is too late. There is a way out. It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. That is to make £4 million available to pay the higher differentials which he desires. That would be a reasonable compromise which I believe local authorities and teachers would be prepared to accept.

I appeal to the Minister and to the Government to consider this before irreparable damage is done to education and local government in this country.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)

I have listened attentively to the case against the Minister's decision which has been made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short), but I must tell him I found it totally unconvincing. He seemed to try to prop up a bad case by using a lot of violent language. I have made notes of some of the phrases which dropped from him. He was throwing phrases about like confetti at a wedding. He used phrases such as, "nonsense", "bad faith" and fighting every inch of the way".

I do not believe it is any good trying to discuss a question as important as this with that sort of street-corner claptrap. I invite the hon. Member and those who agree with him to believe that I recognise that there is a case—which has not been at all effectively put by the hon. Member—a genuine case for those who criticise the Minister's decision. I want to look at that case and to suggest why I think it faulty. As we have been told over and over again, the Burnham Committee was set up at the end of the First World War, more than forty years ago. When the Burnham Committee was created the amount of money which the country devoted to education was trifling by comparison with what it is now.

I have looked up the figures, and I find that in 1920 the total cost for England and Wales was £52 million, out of which the taxpayer, through the Treasury, provided £30 million. That was very small. Even in 1945–6, after the Butler Act, the total cost was just over £140 million and the Treasury share was just over £80 million. I suggest that it is no good at all looking at Burnham or the Government's part in Burnham without taking into account the enormous expansion of public money which is now put into education. I suggest that that enormous expansion has completely removed the assumptions on which the Burnham Committee was created.

It was perfectly reasonable forty years ago to say, "The Minister is providing a very small sum. Why should he interfere? What has it to do with him? Let the two sides of Burnham agree and let the Minister keep out". I suggest that it is totally unreasonable to take up that position today. Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, education is too important to be left to Burnham. The Minister of Education has a judgment to perform.

Mr. Short

The hon. Member evidently has not been listening to me. I have no objection to the Minister being included in the negotiations, and I do not think teachers object to that. What we want is that if the Minister comes in there should be some independent arbitrator at the end and the Minister should not be the final arbiter.

Mr. Curran

I am quite prepared to take that point. I am not speaking for the Minister but for myself. I believe that the position which the Minister ought to occupy in relation to wage negotiations in education is a commanding position. I do not believe he should be there simply for the purpose of endorsing decisions taken by the two sides of the Committee. Because of the enormous expansion of education, because of the enormous increase in public spending on education—something which I welcome and which I suppose we all welcome—because of these fundamental changes over the last forty years the Minister must take up a position in relation to Burnham which is radically different from any position taken up by any Education Minister in the past.

Mr. Short

What about arbitration?

Mr. Curran

As I have listened to speeches made from the other side of the House, it has seemed that hon. Members were saying that Burnham knows best and decisions taken in the Burnham Committee are decisions which should be accepted because its members are the experts and know more than anyone else about the matter.

Mr. G. Thomas

Is the hon. Member arguing that the Minister knows best?

Mr. Curran

I am quite prepared to argue that the Minister is at least as good a judge of what education means in this country as is the Burnham Committee. What we have been hearing from some hon. Members opposite has been almost a sort of scholastic syndicalism, the idea that Burnham knows best and that decisions about education must be left to its two sides, the doctrine that the schools belong to Burnham. I do not believe that any more than I believe that the trains belong to the railwaymen or the dust to the dustmen. The State, the Minister, the public and this House of Commons have every bit as much right to express themselves about education and to impose decisions about education as any Burnham Committee.

I flatly decline to accept any assertion—and we have had a good many from hon. Members opposite—that decisions taken inside the Burnham Committee ought not to be upset, over-ridden or criticised. Every speech against criticism of the Rurnham Committee has been taken to mean that the Burnham Committee is a better judge than the Minister. I do not accept that. If the Minister is not as good a judge of what education means as is the Burnham Committee, I do not see any reason for having a Minister of Education. We might as well allow Burnham to take over education completely. I invite the critics of the Minister to look at the assumptions on which the Minister has been acting. Some people impute motives to him. I do not think we shall get anywhere in this matter by the imputation of motives. The Minister has been acting on certain assumptions which are perfectly valid and which make abundant sense the moment they are examined.

The Minister is acting on the assumption that when distributing a large sum of public money to education he has a right and a duty to the House to see that it is spent in a way which will produce the maximum benefit for education. He must do that in his own judgment, and I again suggest that as a Minister he is in a better position to form a judgment, because he is able to take the whole national picture and to see far more effectively than any local committee or trade union can see what the country needs or ought to have. I suggest that if the Minister is not competent to do that there is no point in having a Minister. He is there to make decisions on national policy on education.

The Minister has come to a conclusion about the matter, and there is an enormous amount to be said for that conclusion. He has come to the conclusion that the primary necessity now in education is to improve the career prospects of teaching as a profession. That is the decision to which he has come after surveying the national picture. I repeat that he is in a better position to make a national survey than is the Burnham Committee or any component of the Burnham Committee.

After surveying the national picture, he has come to the conclusion that what is most needed in education is a radical improvement in career prospects. He therefore insists that when millions of pounds of public money are allocated to education that money should be spent to produce what he considers to be the maximum public benefit, and that it is used to ensure that the objective he has in mind is obtained. After all, he is there to make certain that education becomes better and better.

Mrs. Slater

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Minister is right in saying that £12 a week is an adequate wage to attract people into the profession? After deductions for superannuation and National Insurance contributions, they will take home about £9 17s. 6d. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is sufficient to attract people into the profession to take advantage of the career prospects?

Mr. Curran

I am happy to deal with that point. I suggest that when people decide to go into a profession what they look at is not so much the initial income but the income they will receive in middle age. Consider the analogy of another profession, that of the Bar, about which I know something. To recall my experience, I was told, "You must expect to work at the Bar for two or three years before you can make a. living. You must expect to work for two or three years before you make enough money to support yourself". That fact does not deter people from entering the legal profession, because when they decide to enter it they look not at the initial salary, or the initial income, but at the career prospects and what they can expect to earn when they reach their thirties, forties, and fifties.

The great flaw in the teaching profession is that it does not offer to people in middle life the sort of incomes which they could get had they chosen some other profession or gone somewhere else in the labour market. It is this which is causing an enormous amount of damage to the schools. We cannot get people with science degrees to come into the teaching profession. We cannot get honours graduates to come in. If they take their abilities somewhere else in the labour market they will not necessarily command a larger income at the beginning of their careers, but they can look forward to a career structure which in middle life will give them more money than the teaching profession can give them. Consequently, in our schools we are suffering from a grave deficiency of the skilled ability which we need. It is this fact on which the Minister is basing himself, and it is this fact which the critics have ignored.

It is not a question of how much money teaching offers to somebody aged 21 or 22. The capital question is what does this profession offer to people in middle life? When this is matched against the rewards available for the same sort of ability in other directions, the comparison is startling, and this, I suggest, is the basic reason why we are failing to get the kind of recruits in the numbers that we want. We shall not solve the problem by increasing the starting salary. What we have to do is to ensure that in the course of their careers people can get the sort of incomes which they would get had they taken their abilities elsewhere on the labour market.

All these arguments—and we have heard them over and over again—about "Can somebody live on £12 a week?" "How would you like to live on £12 a week?", and "Is it fair to give somebody f12 a week to teach, and somebody else £1,200 a week to stand in front of a microphone and croon?" get us nowhere, because they fail to touch the problem which we have not solved, that of how to get into the schools the flow of skilled ability without which the schools will fail this country?

Everybody agrees that this country urgently needs more trained minds. Everybody agrees that if this country is to keep pace with the rest of the world we need a greater flow of trained ability. To get that means providing a greater flow of trained ability in the teaching profession, and the Minister's intervention is in pursuit of that goal. It is not only wrong but squalid that the decision which he has taken on national grounds and in the interests of the children should be attacked by the squalid trade union restrictionism which has been inflicted on us from the other side of the House.

Mr. Stan Awbery (Bristol, Central)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for many years there has been a negotiating committee for the teachers and the education authority? This Committee has always laid down the principle to be adopted. We are now destroying the principle which has been laid down for the last twenty or thirty years, and we are not even prepared to accept the Committee as an advisory one, much less as a negotiating body to work out the wages of the teachers.

Mr. Curran

The hon. Gentleman seems not to have grasped the argument. This is not something which can be settled in terms of wage negotiations. We are discussing education, and I suggest that we cannot discuss that by analogy. We cannot discuss it by reference to wage or salary negotiation methods which apply elsewhere, because here we have a unique problem. We are here considering children, the sort of facilities which we provide for them, and the kind of people we provide to teach them. We cannot judge this matter in terms of the ordinary negotiations in the labour market. This is something quite apart and quite different, and I suggest that the Minister, in tackling the matter as he has done, is doing his duty as the Minister of Education. He is carrying out the duty which he owes to the children and to the parents, and I do not believe that there is the smallest ground either for criticising him or for making the imputations against him to which we have listened far the last few hours.

I am not representative of any teachers' union or any other body connected with education. I am simply a taxpayer and a Member of the House who is anxious, as I suppose we all are, to see an immense expansion of education in this country. I believe—[Interruption.] I listened with courtesy to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I hope that they will do as much for me. I listened to the figures given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the increase in the proportion of the national income which we allot to education. He said—and this is a figure which cannot be repeated too often—that over the last ten years the proportion of the national income allotted to education had risen from 3 per cent. to nearly 5 per cent. This is a tremendous achievement without precedent in our social history, but, tremendous and unprecedented as it is, we cannot stand on it. I believe that it is necessary to allocate a still larger slice of the national income to education.

To bring that about we have to carry the people with us. We cannot in a free society make that kind of allocation of our resources unless the people are in favour of it. The people of this country will be prepared to allocate a larger amount of the national income to education, but I believe that when they do they will insist on having control of how the money is spent. If we are to succeed in allocating a larger proportion of the national income to education, it is imperative that we make it clear that decisions about the spending of that money will be taken inside this House and not inside the Burnham Committee.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. J. Idwal Jones (Wrexham)

In replying to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the Parliamentary Secretary complained that my hon. Friend had used too dark colours in his painting, that he had used black rather too often. Perhaps I may be allowed to point out to the Parliamentary that every true artist builds up his picture from the shadows. A true artist always starts with the black and works out to the light. In other words, he concentrates on the shadows and lets the lights take care of themselves. That is the policy in which we on this side believe. We believe in concentrating upon the shadows in our education system. Hitherto, the lights have had far too large a share of the educational privileges. We believe that the time has arrived to concentrate on the shadows.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), but I was not able to make much of his contribution to the immediate problem facing us. The problem is to reduce the size of classes, to build new schools and to extend existing schools, and to increase the number of teachers, with the necessary extension and building of new teacher training colleges. The Minister is faced with this problem because ten locust years have been wasted since the Government came to office in 1951. Neither hon. Members opposite nor the Government were convinced that expansion of teacher training colleges was necessary before 1958. They adopted a policy of expansion in 1960. Even now they find that that policy is not meeting the requirements.

There is no difficulty whatsoever in recruiting men and women to the teaching profession. There is no difficulty in recruitment. The difficulty arises from the fact that hitherto the country has not provided the means to train them. In 1962 there were 13,300 applications to the university colleges of Wales. Of those 13,300 applications, only 2,200 were admitted. In other words, 11,100 applicants were refused. I cannot agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that those 11,100 applicants were marginal applicants. Most of them had obtained high qualifications at their grammar schools at G.C.E. A-level, but there were no places for them at the universities. Consequently we have been denied the services of many of them in the teaching profession.

The Minister set his target of 80,000 teachers by 1970–71. There is nothing wrong with the target. It shows the immensity of the problem. It is the result of the accumulation of the Government's lack of activity in the last twelve years. The target is all right. What is wrong is that the Government have not faced up to the situation boldly and with imagination in an effort to reach the target. The Government are not providing the finance needed if the target is to be reached by 1970. Colleges are being asked to solve the problem for the Ministry. They are being asked to take one-third extra students in 1964–65, nearly half extra in 1966–67, and well over half extra by 1968–69. How is this to be achieved? The only practical method of achieving it is by building new colleges or expanding existing ones. That is what the Government are not prepared to do.

I know that these colleges cannot be built in a day. I know that they may take two or three years or more. The fact remains that in those few years the existing colleges and their staffs would co-operate to the full and assist the Minister. At present the Minister does not contemplate establishing any further training colleges, unless an exceptional case can be made for one. Eighty thousand extra teachers are wanted by 1970, but the Minister is not prepared to contemplate the building of a new teacher training college. I know that he is prepared to spend £7 million on major enlargements of existing colleges and small projects. These projects are very interesting. They mean extending a library or a kitchen, or a study space, to solve the problem of teacher shortage! That is the extent to which the Government are prepared to spend money in an effort to solve this enormous and urgent problem. It boils down to the fact that the Minister wants as much as possible done with the least possible expense.

The Minister proposes to play about with college terms, college timetables, and the supervision of students. That is his solution. He proposes to hand this problem over for the colleges and the schools to solve. For example, there is the so-called Box and Cox arrangement. I do not know the origin of the term. For the benefit of some of my hon. Friends, perhaps I may be allowed to explain this Box and Cox arrangement. The Minister proposes to divide the nine college terms into two periods of six terms and three terms. The students are expected to be in the colleges for six terms and in the schools doing practice for three terms, the idea being that while the students are in schools their places can be taken at the college, thus increasing the number of admissions to the colleges. Who is going to supervise the students? The supervision of the students is to be handed over to the school staffs. A more pathetic suggestion I have never read. It is called a Box and Cox arrangement. I call it a cock and bull suggestion.

In addition, what I am going to mention now is incredible. They are suggesting also the possibility of accommodating more students in the existing college bedrooms. This is preposterous. We have seen this sort of thing happening in our gaols, putting two or three prisoners in one cell. Now they are suggesting doing the same in training colleges. They cover themselves by saying this in their circular: Colleges will naturally take as their starting point the welfare of their students, so many of whom are young people straight from school. I am suggesting to the Minister that practice is better than precept.

Apart from criticising, I wish to make a practical proposition. There is at Wrexham a training college for women. At present it contains 303 students and, by instalments of 150 each year, will have 450 in three years' time. The college wants six extra lecture rooms and a common room to accommodate the extra fifty who will be taken in next September. We are already towards the end of March and the authorities at the college do not know where they are and what is the position regarding the extra accommodation needed if the extra number of students is to be admitted. I urge the Minister to consider this problem most seriously and urgently.

In Wrexham there is the Hermitage Camp which used to belong to the War Office but is in process of being purchased by the education authority for a training college and other education purposes. There are extensive, well-paved roads, extremely good playing fields, gas, electricity, water services and other amenities all laid on. There are one or two Army huts still in good condition, well heated and well lit. There are also good gymnasia, dining rooms and well equipped kitchens. The cost to make the camp more attractive to students would be negligible. Despite this, the Minister has not agreed to approve spending even a very small sum for the improvements. I hope that he will reconsider this matter carefully.

Within four miles of my home there are five large secondary modern schools which were built between sixty and eighty years ago as elementary schools. They have been condemned by the inspectorate. Generation after generation of children have passed and are still passing through them to receive what is known as their secondary education. I repeat—for I have said this many times before—that throughout the education system of this country no pupil has been dealt with more shabbily than the one who attends the secondary modern school. I have never believed in the tripartite system, but so long as that system prevails the secondary modern school should be given the status it merits. Do not let us deceive ourselves into thinking that we can give the secondary modem schools that status by allowing one or two of the best pupils who attend them to pass the G.C.E. examination. That is really the task of the grammar school, and I would be the last to commend any secondary modern school which does the work of a grammar school. The answer, of course, is that there should be more places in grammar schools.

The secondary modern school has its own work to do; useful work for the community and as important a task as any other school—that is, if we have the right sense of values. These schools need playing fields, gymnasia, laboratories, gardens and libraries, but they are not getting them now. In this connection, Denbighshire put forward schemes costing £641,000 but was granted £48.000–7 per cent. Anglesey put forward schemes worth £424,000, but did not get a penny. The same can be said of Pembrokeshire.

What about mid-Wales? Here is an area crying out for resuscitation. Efforts are being made to introduce new industries and to bring new life and a good heart to this area. It is already threatened with railway closures, but despite all of this, the Minister wields his axe remorselessly, resolutely and decisively and these vital improvements cannot be made. Cardiganshire put forward schemes for £137,000, Merionethshire, put forward schemes for £177,000, and Montgomeryshire put forward schemes for £179,000. It is worth noting the marked similarity of the sums proposed. Radnor and Brecon put forward schemes for £73,000 and £374,000, respectively. How many of these projects was the Minister prepared to approve? Not one.

The whole area is not allowed to proceed with a single project; such is the measure of the Minister's assistance to that part of Wales. There are seventeen authorities in the whole of Wales, and of the total number of schemes submitted only eight have been awarded anything at all. I believe that those awards have amounted to between 7 and 10 per cent. of the original amounts of the schemes submitted. It is most disappointing, and I urge the Minister to look again at his policy which, as it stands, will not bring him credit.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Woking-ham)

I hope that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) will acquit me of discourtesy if I cannot follow him in his detailed knowledge of educational matters in Wales today, to which he has drawn our attention.

I would respectfully disagree with him, with less knowledge than he, on one matter, which some hon. Members may think a small aspect of his speech, when he was objecting to secondary modern schools. I thought that I detected in his argument the point of view that this was a type of school where we should concentrate not so much on brains, but on hands. I think that he used the phrase that the secondary modern school was not a place where children should be taking the G.C.E. I disagree with him. I think that the work of the teaching profession in many of our secondary modern schools is among the most exciting educational work going on in this country.

Mr. Idwal Jones

I have great experience of secondary modern school work, and I know very well the intellectual capacity and the ability which is found there. The grammar school should look after the G.C.E. stream. I would prefer the comprehensive school, but if we are to have the secondary modern school, I suggest that its work should be of a non-examination character.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I still record quite simply, without the knowledge of the hon. Gentleman, that I respectfully disagree. I maintain the point that I was making when I was interrupted, that our secondary modern schools have tended to be the poor relations of our educational system for too long. There is some intensely interesting educational work in progress among them, and, speaking for my own constituency, I find the constant rise in intellectual standards in our secondary modern schools among the most interesting products of our modern educational system. It disposes, so far as I am concerned, with the rather snob outlook, which I have detected in various places, that there is only a certain top level of person who can benefit from education.

I make it quite clear that I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman's point of view when I say that. I am referring to a point of view that I have heard that there is only a limited section that God has created which can benefit from this type of education. I should have thought that the work in secondary modern schools would show that there is a far greater section which can benefit if it has the opportunity. Therefore, I merely place on record my divergence from the hon. Gentleman on that point.

I must obviously truncate my remarks, probably to the advantage of everybody, but I want, first, to say this. I have, for a reason that some hon. Members will recall, sat through all our education debates of the last two years until last July. I have always felt, first, that the House debates education far too little, and, secondly, that it tends to do so when there are matters in dispute. Frankly, when all the thunder and the shouting dies down, as with quite a bit of other work in this House, there is very little between the sides and a very deep belief in certain fundamentals which we hold in common.

It seems regrettable that so often we should be appearing to differ when there is much that binds us together. For that reason, I shall try to tackle the subject in a reasonably neutral sort of way, and shall certainly not trot out statistics of a party political nature, because I believe that in educational matters that does not much benefit anybody.

There are those, and I accept the sincerity of their views, who are profoundly disturbed by the present situation in which my right hon. Friend finds himself with Burnham, but they ought to be more appreciative of the very deep-seated feeling of a large number of people who are interested in education that it no longer makes sense for the Minister to be in this curious position vis-à-vis Burnham where he is recognised as having a place, but a place that only gives him the ability to say yea or nay at the very end.

As I understand the tenor of our debate, and I have heard most of the speeches, a number of hon. Members who carry great weight in educational matters, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas)—and I regret their absence now; they have been present practically throughout our debate and even now are only temporarily absent—speaking with much experience of teacher matters, said that while they deplored the method of the doing they were in favour—and I hope that I am not in any way taking their names in vain—of the Minister's presence in Burnham. It is only fair to add that they both made certain reservations.

That view is not universally accepted in the teaching profession. I did not feel that it was accepted by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King)—and I see he indicates that I am correct in that thought—speaking, if I may say so, not only as a distinguished educationist, but as a very strong local government man. I believe that in this matter his hon. Friends' views are right. I do not think that the general public are any longer prepared to have a situation in which their representative, of whatever party he may be, who produces such a high percentage of the cash for the salary scales, has no ability to express himself at the formative stage.

I must go on record as being firmly in favour of the Minister having a place. I have no idea how long it will take my right hon. Friend to negotiate this, or whether, in fact, it will be possible to reach an agreed solution—my right hon. Friend may be able to indicate his views a little more to us in a few minutes—but there is the quite totally different point, is there not, of whether the particular intervention he has made in relation to this salary scale is right or wrong. That is a different matter.

I take the view expressed several times from this side. I am quite sure that when one talks to young people and considers one's own start in life—and this applies to all of us in one way or another—one considers the salary scale and not just the starting salary. I beg hon. Members opposite to believe that I am not trying to say that I am satisfied with every element of the staffing salary. I make no such sweeping assertion, but I seek to say that when there is reasonableness one does not seek necessarily to destroy Burnham or the union, or break confidence in the profession, if one tries to look at the structure to the best of one's ability.

In talking to men and women I have been impressed often with the necessity for increased recognition after the first five years or so when, as a generalisation, they tend to take on greater responsibilities. I cannot go into the matter in any greater detail now, but it is for that reason that I think there is far greater wisdom in my right hon. Friend's action than has always been attributed to him. The hon. Member for Itchen made a pleasing reference, though he qualified it slightly afterwards, to my noble Friend, Lord Eccles, when he said that he thought that my noble Friend was a greater friend to teachers than they knew. Respectfully, I believe that that is right.

I have frequently said to my teacher friends that I believed it was in the teachers' own interests that they should have a Minister—and I make clear that I mean a Minister of any party—inside their negotiating body. I say without a note of criticism of either the teachers' panel or the local authorities' panel that I believe that this could bring to that body a wider point of view. I believe that my right hon. Friend has statistical material at his disposal and that increasingly he will have research material at his disposal—and he ought to have had it long before. All this, I should respectfully have thought, would have been to the positive benefit of teachers as members of a profession. I have frequently argued this at teachers' meetings and have found that in the end there was a substantial proportion who felt that there was justice in it.

Mr. T. W. Jones (Merioneth)

Is the hon. Member aware that the Burnham Committee has to be unanimous in its recommendations? If the Minister were a member of the Committee he could veto decisions at all times so that the Committee would be carrying out only just what the right hon. Gentleman wanted it to carry out.

Mr. van Straubenzee

That is a fair point, assuming that the Minister simply entered the Burnham Committee as constituted at present. Given the assumption of no change at all, except that my right hon. Friend was added to the Committee, the hon. Member's point is valid. I cannot have any idea of what is in the Minister's mind at the moment. I have sufficient faith in him as an individual, as I am sure have many other hon. Members, to believe that he has a mind which is receptive to argument on this point. A great deal will depend on the reconstituted Burnham Committee as it emerges.

Meanwhile, we are on the verge, in educational matters, of one of the most exciting inquiries which the country has on hand. If I had any one reason why I am hoping, possibly slightly forlornly, to be returned to the House after another General Election, it is that I should dearly love to be here, on whatever side of the House I find myself—and I cannot be more neutral than that—to take part in the legislation which I am certain all parties will put in the forefront of their programmes to implement the Robbins Report. This could be the 1944 Act for higher education generally. But in many a common room it will set a real cat among the pigeons. All I have to say on it in this debate is that I believe that the report will have far-reaching recommendations on teacher training colleges.

I cannot defend any longer the slightly snob difference between a qualification achieved at the end of three hard-working years of a full degree course, on the one hand, and a course in the technical colleges, on the other. I am well aware of the intellectual argument that, theoretically, the degree is the product of a long course carried out over a wide intellectual area and that it should not be given for something of a highly technical nature. I have had the enlightening experience, through a post which I held for a year, of visiting in that time very nearly all the universities. After talking to undergraduates, one does not find it easy to sustain the argument that they are proceeding on a broad intellectual front and not dealing merely with a narrow technical subject.

Mr. Ellis Smith

You can say that again.

Mr. van Straubenzee

I am prepared to say it again, but not at the price of other hon. Members' time.

We must recognise that what will be proposed will be highly controversial. It will be hotly debated in the House and elsewhere. When it comes, it will be the occasion of tremendous interest.

References have been made to the universities. It is, perhaps, permissible to say this much about them, although they do not come within the purview of my right hon. Friend. I say this without the smallest suggestion of a cheap jeer at the Treasury. It is very easy to raise a cheap laugh at the expense of Treasury civil servants, but I do not believe that the Treasury, through the instrument of the University Grants Committee, is any longer the right parental body, in Government terms, for the universities.

When the change comes, we shall, I hope, consider one matter which I put forward now with very great reticence since it is liable to be wildly misconstrued. I hope that any hon. Members who may wish to take me up on this will, at least, do me the justice of reading my remarks in full. My point is simply this. I am deeply concerned lest we politicians, on both sides of the House, should be pushing the academics too fast in terms of university expansion. This is, I know, a most dangerous thing to say.

I am only too well aware of the many sixth formers and others who would love to go to university. Nevertheless, I cannot but express my profound concern about some of our universities where, it seems to me, although we are making places, what we are doing, in fact, is creating "9 till 5" places of lecture, from which people go away, sometimes 25 or 30 miles, with none of what I would loosely call the out-of-school activities which I, as one who, unfortunately, never experienced it, should regard as one of the priceless advantages in the broadening of the mind at university.

I suppose that it is asking too much of politicians to accept what I say. One says X. Another says Y. The first says that he will double Y on top, and so on. This is, alas, one of the weaknesses of politics at times. Nevertheless, I have the feeling that we may still be going too fast.

I think that both sides of the House realise that there is a malaise in the teaching profession. I come back now to the primary and secondary schools for which my right hon. Friend has a responsibility. It is very easy to blame the malaise on salary scales and say that, if only the salaries are put right, all will be well. I have many ambitions in terms of salary scale, but I wonder whether they are the real answer. I am not arguing myself into the position of saying that salary does not matter. I am not arguing myself into the position of not wanting to see, for instance, depen- dants' allowances and things of that kind for both men and women.

There are many other things which we should like to see. However, I am searching and groping, inadequately, I know, for something rather more positive to deal with the malaise which one finds in many a common room and staff room expressed roughly in these terms, "We are no longer respected as we used to be. We are no longer a profession which people respect."

In how many staff rooms or common rooms have I heard this said. I find it very regrettable. I regard teaching as one of the really great professions. I say bluntly that I should not have enough courage to take it up. Considering the good which a good teacher can do and the bad which a careless and heartless teacher can achieve throughout a life of office, the man or woman who takes up teaching is a very brave person, and I pay the profession that tribute.

I ask myself where the answer to this lies. There is not one single answer of course, but I believe that we shall never get it right until the teaching profession has one self-disciplining, self-governing professional body. I belong to such a body myself. I am a solicitor, one of the underpaid members of the community, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.

The point about my professional body, and I say it without a note of defence, is that it is strongly organised within the House—there is no secret of this—and we work together across the Floor on our strictly professional matters. Woe betide any Government, or future Government, which may overlook the just demands of our profession in professional matters—I might as well stick my oar in both ways. We are also viciously self-disciplining. We have the ability, through our own courts, to remove a member's whole right of livelihood, and we are self-governing. From this, perhaps without its being felt, perhaps sub-consciously, comes a certain pride in one's professional standing, and I long for the day when we can get teachers into this same state of mind.

It is so easy to say. The tragedy of the teaching profession is that it is split into one larger and several smaller bodies. Frankly, there are some petty empires which are defended at the top in this setup. It is so easy for me to say when I am not one, but when one is a general secretary of one body—and I make no reference to anyone—or the president of another, one tends to be ultra-conservative about any change in one's own professional body. It is just as in local government. When one is three away from being mayor, one's local government boundaries are sacrosanct, but when one has passed through the chair one may be prepared to take a rather broader view.

I am putting it out as a suggestion that the time may come when a Government, preferably with the agreement of the profession as a whole, will find themselves forced to legislate. I wish profoundly that this can come from below. I am well aware of the moves which are made and, incidentally, of the generous attitude of mind towards the proposal from at least one of those who, as a big member of the team, could tend to dominate, but who chooses rather to seek to work by agreement and bringing all together. I am equally well aware that, in the early stages at any rate, some form of proportional representation would be necessary if minority interests were to be safeguarded.

But let us think of the strength of a body which would be self-governing in the sense that if any of its members defaulted from the high standards which it had set, it would be the body itself which took the disciplinary action and which asserted its high ideals upon the erring member. What a strength this would be! I have said over and over again to my teacher friends, as I say to the House, that so long as Governments—and I use the word in the plural, for it is Governments and not Government—can divide, so long will they rule the teaching profession.

I must, clearly, on that point come to an end. I want just to recapitulate, if I may. I do not believe that anything useful is gained by casting allegations, from one side or the other, or not caring, or having neglected, or having deliberately chosen to depress standards. Both sides of the House, according to their lights, have the interests of education at heart, and we should be intensely foolish and narrow minded people if that were not so, for on the increasing and developed ability, not just technically but broadly, of our young people depends the prosperity of the nation, and that is what this debate is about.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Irving (Dartford)

I have a very short time in which to speak since I have promised to sit down by five minutes past nine.

Nothing that we have heard today in any way allays the deep underlying anxieties felt by many people throughout the whole teaching profession about the Government's actions in recent weeks and months. We have heard today hon. Members attempting to draw a smokescreen across the bitter resentment felt by teachers, parents and local authorities alike at the Government's action. We have heard Members trotting out some of the information given to them by the Tory Central Office. I should have thought that after the nationalisation flop they would be much more wary.

Hon. Members have spoken about the period from 1945 to 1951. At that time we were leading the Western world. We are certainly not doing that today. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there were figures which proved that we are setting aside a bigger percentage of our gross national product for education than any country in the West. I should like the Minister tonight to give us those figures, because we are unaware of them. We were told that by the end of this decade the Government would have provided 80,000 places in training colleges, but it is clear that we will not have achieved the minimum targets set by the Education Act, 1944, by 1975, thirty years after the passing of that Act, let alone by the end of the decade.

I particularly express my great concern at the effect of the small allocations for both major and minor works in the education service in Kent. A complete breakdown has been averted only by expediency, such as hiring halls or by the addition of utility standard hutments. Neither is satisfactory. Sanitary accommodation is poor or non-existent. In more than one case in my constituency the hired hall is more than a mile from the school. This makes control almost impossible.

The toilet accommodation in a number of rural schools is a disgrace. Much of it is out of date and out of doors. In one case, because of the slope of the playground, whenever it rains the toilet area is under water, which means that children who should be using the toilet facilities regularly are deterred from doing so.

We cannot separate the effects of inadequate major and minor works programmes. When I say that the Kent Education Committee's reaction at finding that its programme has been cut from £4,777,511 to £1,290,000 was one of alarm and dismay I am not underestimating it. The effect of omitting so many projects—and out of 20 secondary school projects submitted only two have been approved—is not that children will be out of school immediately but that by 1967–68, when the 1964–65 programme will have been completed, we shall again begin to have a new bulge in the secondary schools. By 1970 the bulge will be very substantial. By 1971–72 it will reach a peak.

The result of these meagre programmes is, first, to stultify the declared policy of the 1958 White Paper and to leave far too many schools struggling with seriously substandard accommodation for far too long. The second effect is to store up serious trouble by the start of the next decade when the secondary school numbers, which are now relatively low, will have risen to crisis proportions. There will be very little time left after the completion of the 1964–65 programme to prepare for this situation.

To attempt to put right in the 1965–67 programme all the shortcomings of the previous programmes would, obviously, be wholly impossible, particularly when one takes into account the growth of population in the South-East. The accumulation of rejected projects alone in Kent totals £3½ million. This means that in the years to come, projects to this amount will be competing for a place in programmes before any new projects or priorities can be established.

Kent submitted a large programme. There was nothing frivolous or irresponsible about it. Kent considered that it had a duty to put clearly to the Minister the implications for this programme of his own policy statements in the White Paper, in the circular and in the Ministry's projects letter of May, 1962. I hope that even at this late hour, the Minister will face his responsibility.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

Unfortunately, but understandably, a debate on this subject tends for the most part to get into the hands of those who are professionally engaged in it. On the other hand, I hope that my arrival on the scene will serve as a reminder that this is much more the concern of pupils and parents than it is of the practitioners in the professions associated with it. It is that to which I want to bring the House back in the short time while I speak.

As I go round the country—and I imagine that my experience must be the same as that of most other right hon. and hon. Members—I find that this is one of the subjects which arouses the deepest interest at meetings which I attend. People are extremely concerned about the lack of facilities for their Tommy or their Mary, whether it be at primary, secondary or higher level, to get the education that they cherish for them.

I mention that because in listening to the debate, and certainly in listening to the Parliamentary Secretary, I had a strong feeling that there is a good deal of unwillingness on the benches opposite to recognise the degree of worry and concern that exist. It is clear that successive Ministers of Education—of whom there have been almost as many as there have been successive Ministers of Defence under the present Administration—have made some substantial miscalculations. They have persistently miscalculated the population development and today it sounded to me as though they would go on hoping that this would some day put itself right and that there would be fewer children at some stage to deal with. This is one of the reasons why they hang back from facing the severity of the problem. I doubt very much whether in our lifetime that hope on the part of the Government will be satisfied.

Secondly, the Government continue to underestimate seriously the willingness, and, indeed, the desire, of young people and their parents nowadays to keep those young people at school until a much later age. In making their plans for dealing with the problem, even in assessing its size, either for places, facilities, classrooms or teachers, the Government should give much more weight to what, I think, will be a developing and not a lessening trend.

When, as happened this afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary is put up, as those of us who have belonged to the club in our days know, to open a serious debate like this while the Minister holds himself back for the end, one knows fairly well from experience what that means. The brief that the hon. Gentleman is given leaves out most of the titbits, which will be kept back for the Minister at the end of the day. So it was in my day, and so, quite clearly, it was today. If I criticise the Parliamentary Secretary, it has nothing to do with his charms or plausibility in delivering his brief. I sympathise very much and understand the restrictions under which he worked.

I was not clear on which of two legs the Parliamentary Secretary wished to stand. At different stages he used both of them. I was not clear whether he was saying, "Yes, I recognise the seriousness of the situation as described in the devastating speech by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), but, I am sorry, this is all we shall be able to do or can do about". At one stage, that was what the hon. Gentleman said. At another stage he wanted to make the defence that the situation was not as we describe it, that the Government are spending more and doing more, that things ars getting better and that in educational expenditure we are one of the foremost nations in Europe, if not in the world. Both these lines of defence were open to the hon. Gentleman, and I imagine that the Minister himself will soon tell us which one he selects.

Let us get the position clear. First, 60 per cent. of our secondary school population is still being taught in classes with more than the limit of 30 pupils which the Butler-Ede Act of 1944 envisaged us achieving long before now. Secondly, it was hoped to achieve a maximum of 40 children per class in primary schools long before now. Anyone who knows what teaching is like in primary schools regards even 40 as an idealistic figure to aim for, and the size of the classes at present is a continuing criticism of the progress we have failed to make during the last two decades.

I saw a survey recently published by the N.U.T. showing that some 17 per cent. of our primary schools have no hot water supply and that one-seventh have no flush lavatories. This kind of thing is a severe indictment of the conditions under which our children are supposed to be educated and their teachers to work. About three-quarters of our primary schools still have pre-1914 buildings. Many of them were forced to close during the recent cold spell because of the inadequacy of the buildings.

Thirdly, many hon. Members have referred to the inadequacy of the provision of university places, which is getting steadily worse every year. A recent report showed how serious this has been this year. Do not let us imagine that any nation can be a powerful, industrially expanding nation in the second half of the twentieth century—quite apart from the moral aspect—if it turns away from its universities qualified young people at the rate at which we have turned them away this year, and will go on turning them away for some years to come.

Fourthly, it has been stated that we refused 3,000 recruits who were ready to enter the teaching profession this year simply because places for them in training colleges did not exist. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary saying that 800 of them were good and that 2,000-odd were borderline cases. I was not comfortable about his division. I have an awkward feeling that the Government are gradually raising the standards in this and that by "good" he meant those with university education, while those he called "borderline" were people with very good General Certificate results who would be perfectly capable of training as good teachers. The word "borderline" was a very doubtful one for him to use. It seems to be admitted that we need 50,000 more teachers in order to bring the class levels down to the figures envisaged in the 1944 Act, without allowing for the growth of population and all the other things. Obviously, the Minister's plans for teacher-training will not make that shortage up.

A great deal was made by the hon. Gentleman of the increased expenditure on education. But the point about this is not that the expenditure has increased, for it is impossible that it should not have done so, partly because of the decline in the value of money and partly because the number of children has increased. It would have been miraculous even for this Government to have produced the opposite result. They can hardly claim the credit for that. The point is that the increase has not provided for any real improvement in standards over a very large part of education.

The Government say that between 1955 and 1962 they provided nearly 900,000 new secondary school places. But in that same period the number of secondary school pupils increased by over 800,000. Thus, in the light of how far behind we were in the beginning, the Government's achievement is really rather modest. From this the Government could say that there were 40,000 additional teachers in secondary schools in the last seven or eight years. In point of fact, we know that the 800,000 or 900,000 increase in pupils during that time has meant no improvement in the position. The pupil-teacher ratio has worsened, I am told, during that period.

One could go on giving such examples and refer to new schools opened in 1961 as compared with 1951. But fewer new schools were opened in 1961 than ten years previously. So it seems pretty clear that, broadly speaking, the situation has worsened and not improved, despite the additional expenditure, and it leaves us, at the end of twelve years of Conservative Government, in a very serious situation. The Government ought either to apologise and say, "We have done the best we can" or claim credit for the situation being no worse than it is. But they cannot pretend to the parents that in 1963 there exists an educational system which will give their children anything like the chances which they are entitled to claim.

We now turn to what it is that the Government are doing about the situation. Clearly the first thing is a cut in the building programmes of local education authorities. I will not repeat the figures or the counties or county boroughs listed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. What fascinated me was the extraordinary attempt of the Parliamentary Secretary, in accordance with his brief, to prove when a cut was not a cut. It was the most fascinating exercise I have heard for a long time. The hon. Gentleman admitted that the schools that county or county boroughs want to build are not to be built, and they are not being built on the instructions of the Minister. But the Minister has not cut the building programme. That is nonsense. I do not know how one might describe it. But the fact is that projects which would have been in the building programmes have taken out by the hon. Gentleman and his Minister.

Take, for example, the situation in my own county. It is always easier to talk about a place that one knows. We in Derbyshire asked for permission to start £10.8 million worth of school building work. We were allocated £3.9 million, of which two-thirds had to go to the improvement of existing schools and only one-third for new buildings. That cannot be described as anything other than a cut, and it was a very substantial cut in what the county wished to do.

I should like the House to be aware of what this means. I have a list of schools in Derbyshire which we are not to be allowed to have. Some of the projects have been regularly put in the programme and taken out year after year. They did not appear this year for the first time. There is a school at South Normanton which was built in 1880, and we are not to be allowed to replace that school building. There is another school which was built in 1878, and we are not to be allowed to replace that. There is another which was built in 1869, and we are not to be allowed to replace it. I repeat that many of these projects have appeared in our programme year by year and have regularly been taken out.

I will not weary the House with a long dissertation about Derbyshire. But the situation in the county and in the County Borough of Derby is one which must be reproduced in constituencies of many hon. Members opposite. Urgently needed, desperately needed, building projects are being prevented on the instructions of the Minister. Whether this is called a cut or a ban, it is one or the other, and either way it is preventing us from giving our people the kind of school facilities which they ought to have.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was a matter of priorities and that if we built schools we could not build houses or hospitals. I wish to heaven, that were a correct description of the way this Government carries out its building programme. But it is not. The Government have no machinery for doing it in that way. One of the big issues at the next election will be that the party on this side of the House will he saying that we ought to have a mechanism for establishing proper social priorities in building work. What does go on is anti-social building. That is what is collaring the building labour and resources. It is anti-social building. Public works, education, housing and hospitals—the whole of the public sector has to suffer a cut, because that is the only sector in which the Government are able to make their influence felt. Therefore, every time they want to cut or reduce it is in the public sector that they cut or reduce. That hare which the Parliamentary Secretary tried to flush will not run.

What the Minister must do tonight is either to disprove the picture which we have painted—which he clearly will not be able to do; any hon. Member who is in touch with the situation in his own county knows that—or explain why he proposes to apply a smaller building programme rather than a larger one to a situation as bad as the present one.

I now turn to the second leg of the Motion, which relates to teacher supply. We have had a series of policy statements from the Ministry in the last few years, many of which have tended to imply that we are producing more teachers and are catching up with the problem. In fact, we are doing nothing of the sort. The Minister's own programme for increasing teacher supply by the early seventies will clearly solve nothing. It will not enable us to meet even the immediate demands that ought to be met within the teaching service. The 30,000 extra places ought to be achieved much earlier than the date by which the Minister proposes to achieve them, and even then—as I showed by the figures I quoted earlier—the number of places will be too small to meet the essential minimum needs of an improved education service.

We have heard a lot about the stopgap arrangements which have been made —the crowding out of existing colleges, and so on. I do not oppose them. We must take every step we can in a situation of this kind. But it is not enough merely to do that. We should not use the fact that that is being done as an excuse for not providing more places in our new institutions. But that it what the Minister is doing. He is using his stop-gap measures—or is allowing the Treasury to enforce them upon him—as an excuse for not doing the things that should be done.

In the next twenty years we shall be short, and we shall have no hope of raising the school-leaving age or of getting classes down to the proper limits. The brave words used by the First Secretary in 1944 when he was Minister of Education about the intention being to keep right ahead in education and not to go along leisurely look awfully sick words now—just about as sick as do the words he used later, when talking about the standard of living. They have got pretty well out of date, too.

Mr. Longden

rose—

Mr. Brown

I am sorry, but I cannot give way. I held back in order not to interfere with the debate and I promised the Minister that I would suffer the loss and not take it out of his time.

The Parliamentary Secretary's reference to married women who have come back into the profession as part-time teachers amounted to a considerable eulogy. I do not criticise that, but it cannot make any long-term effective contribution to the solution of the lack of teachers. Nevertheless, I thought that he brought it forward as though the problem was not nearly as serious as it is, or as though the problem was within sight of being solved.

I should like the Minister to consider a pet theory of mine, to which I have referred before. I do not believe that we pay enough attention to the effect which the quota system has on the availability of teachers. There is no way of knowing how many teachers who are refused jobs in London or the Home Counties because of the operation of the quota system drift away altogether from the profession because they will not live somewhere else. They find some other kind of job in the area in which they want to live. We must discover how big this problem is. I do not know, but I have a feeling that we are losing a good number by the rigid operation of the quota system. It wants looking into.

In this situation of teacher supply, is it not absolutely absurd, as so many of my hon. Friends have said, for the Minister to pick this moment to have a row with the Burnham Committee and all the teachers' organisations, or nearly all of them? I am not going to take the view that the Minister is necessarily wrong to say that the Burnham Committee has been putting too much emphasis on the basic and general rates and not enough on the structure. I do not know enough about it to take that position. There may well be considerable force in the Minister's view that at some stage there has got to be a change. There may well be considerable force in the Minister's view that, in view of the national Exchequer contribution, at some stage the Minister has got to have a rather more direct hand in the negotiations, although I point out that if that is true of teaching, then, under the present block grant arrangements, it becomes true of every other form of public service, and would make a considerable change in the existing situation.

I am prepared to say that there is some force in that argument. It may be high time that it was discussed. I am absolutely sure, however, that the time to enforce it is not in the middle of the current negotiations. It must be a good British tradition that the side which is losing does not put in its own referee and change the rules because it is losing. One cannot have good will and a rational approach and expect people to listen to what one is trying to do if in the middle of the negotiations one tries to do this. To one who is not a teacher but a taxpayer and parent it seems that the Minister had no alternative. Having let that set of negotiations reach the point they did and an agreement having been made between the two sides, the Minister was under a moral obligation to honour that agreement and allow it to be paid. He was quite willing to find the £21 million because he has no quarrel about the fact that that sum of money should be found. I ask him to stop and think again. This has been done by other Ministers in other situations. Having thought again, they have formed their decision. It was the Minister's duty so to honour the agreement as his colleagues have done when a similar dispute has arisen.

Then, with that out of the way, he could have found extra money. It is not an enormously large sum in the total cost of education—we are talking about £3 million or £4 million—not a tremendous amount. He could have found the money for the additional payments so that this could operate now. Then he could invite the authorities and the unions to meet him to discuss a modification of the negotiating machinery. At that stage he would be entitled to use a good deal of pressure on them to bring about what he wanted. Then he would be doing it in the sort of atmosphere in which people would listen to him and he might have found support in all quarters for what he wanted to do. It would not have been seen as a brutal dictatorial way of interfering with voluntary salary negotiating machinery and bludgeoning people into doing what the gentleman in Whitehall happens to think they ought to do.

I think the Minister has made a tremendous, crashing mistake by doing it in the way he has done it or at the time he has done it. It is terrible to rouse all this bitter feeling for the sake of this small sum of money when he could almost certainly have got what he wanted. Later on—I mean in months, not years he could do it in the way I have described. The effect of this row is bad. It is bad for the educational system. It has a bad effect on the pupils who are the residual legatees of ill-will when it exists. It is bad for the existing teachers. Above all, it must be bad for the image of the profession and, therefore, bad for the recruitment of new teachers just at the moment when we are so short of them and anxious to get new teachers.

I shall not go into the argument about whether the starting salary is too low or just about right. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite toss aside too easily the effect on teachers of a starting rate as low as it is. It is all very well to say that what matters is what someone will receive when he is 30 or 40 or 50, and that it is this which induces him into a profession. With respect, this argument can be heavily overdone. When a person is 22 he cannot pay his landlord or his bitcher out of the prospects which he thinks he will have later in life. One has to consider these things, and I have a feeling that the present starting salary is too low to attract people into the profession.

But whether I am right or wrong, if the Minister is still open to think again, if his Treasury masters will allow him to think again, I ask him to consider allowing this agreement to go through and then getting everybody together and insisting on the way in which he thinks the machinery ought to be maintained, and seeing where we get to by this method.

I repeat what I said at the beginning. In the light of all the evidence before us, I think that the Ministers and their supporters are deceiving themselves about the state of our educational facilities, about the inadequacies of the system, and about the possibilities of putting the matter right in anything like the near future. The disappearance of half the Government's vote at Colne Valley and other places has as much to do with this feeling of people that Ministers and Conservative Members are out of touch with what is really happening as with anything else. I believe that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the speeches of his supporters today reinforce only too well the belief that they do not realise how serious and grim the situation is in education as seen from the point of view of the pupil, the teacher and the parent, and unless we have something much better from the Minister I think that the House will have ample grounds for supporting our Motion.

9.32 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)

I should like to comment on three points of the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I say straight away how much I am sure we all welcome him to an education debate.

First, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman when he claims that there has been no improvement in the quality of the education service during recent years. During this Parliament the expenditure on education in real terms has been rising by between 5 and 6 per cent. a year, and I shall cite one example to the right hon. Gentleman where we have undoubtedly seen a real improvement in the service, and that is that with the completion of rural reorganisation every boy and girl in a country district now gets a full secondary education. I believe that the secondary modern schools in the country areas, to mention only one example, make as far bigger difference than many of us who live in the towns realise.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to oversize classes. I shall have a certain amount to say on teacher supply. I do not want to underplay the problems ahead, but if one considers the percentages of those in oversize classes one sees that the percentage has fallen steadily from about 37.4 per cent. in 1951 to 28.9 per cent. now, and while I shall not gloss over the problems of the 'sixties, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that there has not been a real improvement in the quality of the service.

Mr. A. V. Hilton (Norfolk, South-West)

The right hon. Gentleman said that every child who is entitled to it is receiving a full secondary education. If he checks with the Norfolk County Education Authority—and I am a member of it—he will find that hundreds of children in our county are not getting a full secondary modern education. This is the point I shall make if I catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

Sir E. Boyle

The hon. Gentleman's intervention will not encourage me to be so generous in giving way to other hon. Members.[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Certainly. The answer to the hon. Member's intervention is that over the country as a whole rural reorganisation has been completed, but that urban reorganisation has still to be completed. I am not denying that there may still be occasional pockets. Everything has been put into programmes which are now under way.

On the quota system, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, as a Birmingham Member I know very well the problems which this system has brought. I do not want to get rid of this framework prematurely. I think that it would be a great mistake. I am perfectly ready to consider improvements in its operation. For example, the concession which already applies to returning married women teachers has been extended to married women graduates who turn to teaching for the first time after some years. I am quite ready to consider any suggestions the right hon. Gentleman may wish to make about this.

I wish to say a word on the subject of the Burnham Committee, though it is not strictly in line with the debate. I said in my first letter to Sir Thomas Creed that I thought that the total of the Burnham award was a generous one which I was not prepared to see increased. I believe that I acted properly in accordance with Section 89 of the 1944 Act. I acted in what I believe to be the best long-term interests of the profession. I believe that many people in all political parties and none are fully aware of the importance of a proper salary scale structure in the teaching profession. I fully recognise that education must be a partnership between the partners, but I cannot agree that because the teachers and the local authorities are agreed on an issue I am, therefore, not entitled to disagree or express my own view on educational grounds.

I should like to answer a question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central {Mr. Short). I am sorry that I was not here when he spoke. He asked whether I had discussions with the employers' panel. The answer is, "No ". I am not sure that perhaps all hon. Members realise how closely the Ministry of Education is in touch with local authority associations on all sorts of educational topics. It is certainly true that during the long period since last June, while these negotiations have been going on, the opportunity has been taken for informal exchanges of views about teachers' salaries with representatives of these associations, but I have never asked them, and the associations have never made any commitment, about the course they intended to pursue. Any informal discussions have left the associations completely free to formulate the policy which guides their members on the employers' panel. I want to make that point absolutely clear in view of what has been said in some sections of the Press.

The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central also asked, on the subject of future Burnham machinery, whether it was my intention to retain a power of veto as well as seeking a place in the negotiations. My answer is simply this. It is my intention to discuss the future shape of negotiation machinery fully with all my partners in the education service, but I cannot anticipate the particular balance of interest which will best secure to each partner his proper place in the negotiations. I cannot say more than that tonight. I think that that is a perfectly fair statement.

I repeat to the House that my action was taken after considerable thought. I believe that it will prove to be best in the long-term interest of the teaching profession, and I am absolutely certain that the esteem of that profession and the service it can render to the nation must depend not only on the starting salary, but also on the rewards and possibilities it offers to the most able. I point out, also, that there is the point of equity. One must bear in mind that people have greater family responsibilities as they get older. It is those points which have guided me entirely.

I did not seek this quarrel. I did not deliberately try to make an occasion for upsetting the existing machinery. I took this decision on its merits, though I fully realise—this is accepted on both sides of the House—that there is a strong case also for a revision of the machinery and procedures for settling teachers' pay.

I wish to answer some of the questions put about teacher supply and I will then deal with school building. On the former, I would say straight away that I am absolutely in agreement with those who have said that this is the most serious and difficult question facing the education service today. The school population now is 2 million bigger than it was at the end of the war. By 1970, we shall have between 750,000 and 800,000 more children in school than we have today and by 1980 we shall probably have 2 million more than we have today.

It is quite possible that even these figures may be an under estimate, because there are those—and this is a subject on which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, if he were here, would have something to say—who feel that the figures represent dramatic developments in our population such as we have not known since the start of the nineteenth century.

Alongside this there is the great problem of what is inelegantly called "wastage"; that is, the natural tendency for young women to leave the profession early and get married and have families. The National Advisory Council's seventh Report assumed, on the basis of current trends, that by the end of the 1960s only 47 women out of every 100 would still be in service after four years, and 19 after nine years of service. It seems surprising that we should be censured on this subject, bearing in mind that we have already, during the course of only five years, increased the student population of the training colleges from 28,000 to nearly 50,000, and that we shall be almost tripling the student population over a period of twelve years.

I think that, basically, we have three sources of teacher supply. There are, first, the training colleges. They alone can supply in really large numbers the primary teachers we need to get down the size of our classes; and this especially applies to women teachers of infants. This means that expanding the supply of teachers from the training colleges is the most helpful single step any Government can take to improve conditions in the primary schools. I have quite deliberately given first priority since I have been Minister to the expansion of the training colleges.

As the House knows, I have accepted in full the recommendation of the National Advisory Council that we should aim at a total student population in the training colleges of 80,000 by 1970. This will mean a considerable increase in building programmes. The building programme for the training colleges in 1963–64 was £6 million. It will rise by 50 per cent. to £9 million next year and will remain at a high figure, £8.5 million, in 1965–66. Furthermore, there will be a very big increase in current expenditure on teacher training; at least threeand-a-half times as much in 1970 as in 1957.

There will have to be a great and continuing administrative effort to build up the numbers from 28,000 to 80,000 students by 1970. It will mean that by 1970 at least 24,000 students a year will be leaving the training colleges and entering the teaching profession. This figure of 24,000 students—and I ask the House to note this carefully—will be double the 1958 figure, despite the fact that we now have a three-year, and not a two-year, training course.

Perhaps I should say a word about the immediate outlook in the training colleges, that is, for the next year or so. The training colleges did extremely well to admit more than 17,000 students last year. I cannot yet forecast admissions for the next academic year, but one thing is quite certain: the total student population next autumn will certainly top 50,000 for the first time. There will also be at least four new temporary day colleges coming into operation this autumn.

It is also worth remembering—as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out in his admirable speech—that there has been a marked improvement in the qualifications of students coming into the colleges. As he said, nearly 40 per cent. last September had two A levels or more.

But I want to say to the House that I very much hope that as colleges expand we shall not become dominated too exclusively by the A levels, because there are still a great many people wanting to enter a training college with lower qualifications than that, who, I believe, will make admirable primary and infant teachers. I do not wish to make too much of this A level point, but there is no fear at all of what one occasionally sees in leading articles that we shall not get students of the requisite quality.

There is no likelihood of that, in my view, at all. We are achieving far more colleges of good size, and, in general, I believe that, as the expansion programme proceeds, many of the training colleges will increasingly take their place alongside the universities and the technical colleges as first-class institutions of full-time higher education in their own right.

The second source of supply of teachers is, of course, the universities. Here we expect to gain substantially from the expansion already announced. During recent years, the proportion of the university output going into the teaching profession has been rising each year. Our present recruitment of graduates is about 6,000 a year. My objective must be not only to step up this rate of increase, but also to see that the schools get a rising share of really good honours graduates.

I do not think that one can overrate the importance to the schools of having a sufficient supply of really good honours graduates who can, as it were, view the whole educative process as a continuum and bring new ideas into the schools. What we need to do is to persuade more and more graduates to look on teaching as a worthwhile career, and in this context, not least, one must consider both the pay structure of the profession and also the general esteem in which it is held in the community.

Thirdly—here I take rather a different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman—I want to say something about married women returners. I regard these as more important than he does. A campaign to attract married women back to the schools was launched in February, 1961. In the first year we got back 4,700; and in the second year nearly 5,600. I know that there were certain special factors last year. Some married women felt an obligation to return because it was the year of intermission, with virtually no people coming out of the training colleges, and they felt particularly that they ought to go back to teaching. One very encouraging feature about these figures was that 7,000 out of 10,000 went back to the primary schools. I think that there are two reasons why this trend may very well continue.

The first is the general trend in our society—it is one that I welcome almost without reservation—for more married women to go out to work. In 1931, only one married woman out of 10 went out to work. By 1951, the proportion was one in four, and by 1961 it was one in three. The second factor is the very striking one that wastage rates for young women teachers are now so high that by 1970 there will be a larger number of trained women teachers who have left the service than trained women teachers actually in the schools. I believe that, if we take these two factors together, there may be an increasingly, as it were, large reserve army of potential returners if only we know how best to approach them.

Here, the Nuffield Survey, to which my hon. Friend referred, can be of very great importance. It has already given us some valuable ideas. For example, we can expect, on the basis of the information that we already have, half of the young women who leave schools early in their career to return as soon as their commitments allow, and there is a significant number of women who are ready to return while their children are still under school age. That is one reason why I was recently able to make an announcement, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, about the provision of nursery schools for the children of teachers who wanted to return to the schools.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked what plan we had, and I will make a forecast. Taking the 24,000 a year coming from the training colleges by 1970, plus the 9,000, or rather more, graduates a year, there will be by then, plus the married women returners, I believe that we shall get another 40,000 extra teachers a year by 1970. That, at any rate, is about two-and-a-half times the figure we had when we first started our policy of expanding the supply of teachers as fast as we could. I must say that, despite all the problems—and I am the last to minimize those problems—I cannot see anything worthy of censure in our performance under this head.

I turn now to the second point, which is school building. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that one of my principal jobs was to promote school building. I would rather widen the definition, and say that one of my principal jobs is to see a very high level of educational building, and successive Conservative Ministers have done precisely that. Public investment as a whole has risen during this Parliament by 49 per cent—from about £735 million a year to £1,100 million a year. During that period, educational investment has risen by 43 per cent., or by nearly as much as the overall figure, despite the fact that many public services started from a much lower basis than did education.

I make no apology for the fact that between now and 1966 higher education will be the main expansionary force in educational building. If we take starts for further education, including the C.A.T.s, teacher training and the universities, the total figure for 1959, the last year of the old Parliament, was £26 million worth of starts. This coming financial year, 1963–64, the figure for higher education will not be £26.4 million but exactly double—£52.8 million, and it will be higher again, £61.3 million, in the year after. I am absolutely certain that this is the right sense of priorities at a time when the bulge is leaving the secondary schools and moving into precisely what might be called the university age group.

I make no apology for pointing out that university investment is rising, because just as the expansion of the teacher training colleges is vital to the primary schools so an increase in higher education investment is essential at a time when the numbers in sixth forms have risen in the lifetime of this Parliament from 76,000 to 126,000. In the same way, I am absolutely sure that it is right that the level of investment in colleges of advanced technology is to be doubled to £4 million. These are important institutions, which I think we should sometimes debate in this House. There has been an enormous development in their work, including a great development in some of them of social studies.

Then there are the teacher training colleges, the figures for which I have just mentioned, and we must not forget ordinary investment in technical colleges, because in many of them the standard of the work fully overlaps with the standard of the work in the colleges of advanced technology. So, altogether, it is absolutely right that today it should be higher education that should be the main expansionary force in educational building.

I come to school building specifically. Here, I would say: do not let us get so pre-occupied with the building programme for 1964–65, which has not yet been finally fixed, that we lose sight of the progress in school building that is being made here and now. Only about a quarter of the £300 million building programme announced in the 1958 White Paper has actually been completed. Work done last year on school building reached the record figure of £66 million, and the figure will be almost as good in this calendar year. No fewer than 400 new schools will be completed during the current financial year, and during the forthcoming financial year as well. Above all, about £200 million worth of improvements in the schools are in the pipeline at this precise moment.

As soon as the Ministry survey is completed and we have the information about the state of the schools, I have promised to pass that information on in a suitable form to the House; but let us remember that it cannot include this very large amount of improvement work which is now going on. This very large figure for improvements is highly relevant to what the right hon. Member for Belper said about whether we get a real expansion of the services. The more improvement in the secondary schools and the more expanded courses, the more voluntary staying on beyond the school-leaving age we shall have. The proportion voluntarily staying on in school beyond the leaving age in this Parliament has risen from 33 per cent. to 37.5 per cent.

This seems to me a most important figure. It will be found in secondary schools of all kinds, comprehensive, grammar, secondary modern and all the rest, and I am rather glad to see, in looking at the statistics, that the very rigid classifications of secondary schools is just beginning to break down a little. I regard this as a welcome sign. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), who made an admirable speech, when he says that we tend to underrate what is being done in many secondary modern schools. He is perfectly right, and what he says is equally true of critics both of the Right wing and the Left wing.

In the provisional 1964–65 building programme we shall, at any rate, be able to complete reorganisation, that is to say, we shall finally include in that programme all the projects needed to get rid of all-age schools. I know that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central is thinking of Newcastle and the prospects of a school which would effect very great improvements. We have discussed this together. May I be allowed to say to him that having got one very large project in 1963–64 I still believe that it was not unreasonable to say, at the same time, that the next project must wait for two years and not for one year?

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North mentioned Preston and said that there was still reorganisation to do. I think that that work is in the pipeline. Preston will not have a nil programme.

Mr. Willey

Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with Gateshead, about which I know more?

Sir E. Boyle

In Gateshead, there were certain difficulties, about which I will write to the hon. Member. But the hon. Member mentioned Preston and, I repeat, Preston will not now have a nil programme.

I have deliberately weighted the programme in favour of the North. The northern authorities will have more in 1964–65 than in the previous year. Durham will increase from £1.7 million to £2.3 million. Northumberland will move from £0.6 million to £1 million, and Liverpool, where there is a strong Roman Catholic problem, from £1.7 million to £1.9 million. I am sorry about Llandaff, but Cardiff will do better in 1964–65 than in 1963–64. Do not let us forget, also, the minor works con-

cession, off the ration, as it were, in the unemployment areas, which have added £2 million, equally divided between the North-East and the North-West, to the minor works total for 1962–63.

I very much hope that after 1964–65 it will be possible to do more for primary schools in the way of replacements and new building. I am sure that when the full £300 million programme is completed hon. Members will feel that there is no stronger case for censuring the Government on school building than there is on teacher training and I confidently advise the House to vote for the Amendment and reject the Motion.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 322.

Division No. 78.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ainsley, William	Deer, George	Hunter, A. E.
Albu, Austen	Delargy, Hugh	Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Allaun, Prank (Salford, E.)	Dempsey, James	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Diamond, John	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Awbery, Stan (Bristol Central)	Dodds, Norman	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Bacon, Miss Alice	Donnelly, Desmond	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Baird, John	Driberg, Tom	Jeger, George
Barnett, Guy	Duffy, A. E. P.	Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Beaney, Alan	Edelman, Maurice	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Edwards, Rt. Hon. Nese (Caerphilly)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bence, Cyril	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Benson, Sir George	Evans, Albert	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Blackburn, F.	Finch, Harold	Kelley, Richard
Blyton, William	Fitch, Alan	Kenyon, Clifford
Boardman, H.	Fletcher, Eric	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	King, Dr. Horace
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Lawson, George
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Forman, J. C.	Ledger, Ron
Bowles, Frank	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Boyden, James	Galpern, Sir Myer	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bradley, Tom	Ginsburg, David	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)?
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Brockway, A. Fenner	Gourlay, Harry	Lipton, Marcus
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Loughlin, Charles
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	Lubbock, Eric
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Gunter, Ray	McCann, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	MacColl, James
Callaghan, James	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	MacDermot, Niall
Carmichael, Neil	Hannan, William	Mclnnes, James
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Hart, Mrs. Judith	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Chapman, Donald	Hayman, F. H.	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Cliffe, Michael	Healey, Denis	McLeavy, Frank
Collick, Percy	Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Islet)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Herbison, Miss Margaret	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Cronin, John	Hilton, A. V.	Malialieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Crosland, Anthony	Holman, Percy	Manuel, Archie
Grossman, R. H. S.	Holt, Arthur	Mapp, Charles
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	Houghton, Douglas	Marsh, Richard
Dalyell, Tam	Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)	Mason, Roy
Darling, George	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Mayhew, Christopher
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hoy, James H.	Mellish, R. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Mendelson, J. J.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Millan, Bruce
Milne, Edward	Reid, William	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Mitchison, G. R.	Reynolds, C. W.	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Monslow, Walter	Rhodes, H.	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Moody, A. S.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thornton, Ernest
Morris, John	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Thorpe, Jeremy
Moyle, Arthur	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Timmons, John
Mulley, Frederick	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Tomney, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)	Wade, Donald
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby,S.)	Ross, William	Wainwright, Edwin
Oliver, C. H.	Royle, Charles (Salford, West)	Warbey, William
Oram, A. E.	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.	Watkins, Tudor
Oswald, Thomas	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Weitzman, David
Padley, W. E.	Sheffington, Arthur	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Paget, R. T.	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)	White, Mrs, Eirene
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)	Small, William	Whitlock, William
Pargiter, G. A.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)	Wigg, George
Parker, John	Snow, Julian	Wilkins, W. A.
Parkin, B. T.	Sorensen, R. W.	Wllley, Frederick
Patcn, John	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Pavitt, Laurence	Spriggs, Leslie	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Pearson Arthur (Pontyprind)	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Peart, Frederick	Stonehouse, John	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Psntland, Norman	Stones, William	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Plummer, Sir Leslie	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John	Winterbottom, R. E.
Popplewell, Ernest	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Prentice, R. E.	Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)	Woof, Robert
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Swain, Thomas	Wyatt, Woodrow
Probert, Arthur	Swingler, Stephen	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Proctor, W. T.	Symonds, J. B.	Zilliacus, K.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Taverne, D.
Rankin, John	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Redhead, E. C.	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)	Mr. Short and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter	Cole, Norman	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Aitken, W. T.	Cooke, Robert	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Cooper, A. E.	Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Allason, James	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Arbuthnot, John	Cordsaux, Lt. -Col. J. K.	Goodhart, Philip
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Cordle, John	Goodhew, Victor
Atkins, Humphrey	Corfield, F. V.	Cough, Frederick
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Costain, A. P.	Gower, Raymond
Barber, Anthony	Coulson, Michael	Green, Alan
Barlow, Sir John	Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Gresham Cooke, R.
Barter, John	Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Grosvenor, Lt. -Col. R. G.
Batsford, Brian	Crawley, Aidan	Gurden, Harold
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Critchley, Julian	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bell, Ronald	Crowder, F. P.	Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)	Cunningham, Knox	Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Berkeley, Humphry	Curran, Charles	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Bidgood, John C.	Currle, G. B. H.	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Biffen, John	Dalkeith, Earl of	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
		Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Biggs-Davison, John	Dance, James	Harvie Anderson, Miss
Bingham, R. M.	d'Avigdor-Goldemid, Sir Henry	Hastings, Stephen
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	Hay, John
Bishop, F. P.	de Ferranti, Basil	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Black, Sir Cyril	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Bossom, Hon. Clive	Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Bourne-Arton, A.	Doughty, Charles	Hendry, Forbes
Box, Donald	Drayson, G. B.	Hicks Rcach, Maj. W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John	du Cann, Edward	Hiley, Joseph
Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Duncan, Sir James	Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Brewis, John	Eden, John	Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter	Elliot, Cant. Walter (Carshalton)	Hill, J. E, B. (S. Norfolk)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upen-Tyne, N.)	Hirst, Geoffrey
Brooman-White, R.	Emery, Peter	Hobson, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Hocking, Philip N.
Browne, Percy (Torrington)	Errington, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip
Bryan, Paul	Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Hollingworth, John
Buck, Antony	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Hope, Rt, Hon. Lord John
Bullard, Denys	Farr, John	Hopkins, Alan
Bullus, Wing-commander Eric	Fell, Anthony	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Burden, F. A.	Fisher, Nigel	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)	Forrest, George	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)	Foster, John	Hughes-Young, Michael
Cary, Sir Robert	Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford&Stone)	Hulbert, Sir Norman
Channon, H. P. G.	Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)	Hurd, Sir Anthony
Chataway Christopher	Freeth, Denzil	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ciark, Henry (Antrim, N.)	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Iremonger, T. L.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)	Gammans, Lady	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Gardner, Edward	James, David
Cleaver, Leonard	George, Sir John (Pollok)	Jennings, J. C.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)	Sheet, T. H. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Morgan, William	Smithers, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Morrison, John	Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Spearman Sir Alexander
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Neave, Airey	Speir, Rupert
Kerby, Capt. Henry	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey	Stevens, Geoffrey
Kershaw, Anthony	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kimball, Marcus	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie	Stodart, J. A.
Kirk, Peter	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Storey, Sir Samuel
Kitson, Timothy	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian	Studholme, Sir Henry
Lagden, Godfrey	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Lambton, Viscount	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)	Talbot, John E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Tapsell, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Leather, Sir Edwin	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Leavey, J. A.	Partridge, E.	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Leburn, Gilmour	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)	Teeling, Sir William
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Peel, John	Temple, John M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Percival, Ian	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Lilley, F. J. P.	Peyton, John	Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Lindsay, Sir Martin	Plckthorn. Sir Kenneth	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Linstead, Sir Hugh	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Litchfield, Capt. John	Pllkington, Sir Rlcharid	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Pitman, Sir James	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	Pitt, Dame Edith	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Longbottom, Charles	Pott, Percivall	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Longden, Gilbert	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Turner, Colin
Loveys, Walter H.	Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Prior, J. M. L.	Tweedsmuir, Lady
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John	van Straubenzee, W. R.
MacArthur, Ian	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Vane, W. M. F.
McLaren, Martin	Pym, Francis	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLaughlin, Mrs, Patricia	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Ramsden, James	Wakefield, Sir Wavell
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)	Rawlinson, Sir Peter	Walder, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin	Walker Peter
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Rees, Hugh	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Macmiilan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wall, Patrick
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)	Renton, Rt. Hon. David	Ward, Dame Irene
Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas	Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Maddan, Martin	Ridsdale, Julian	Webster, David
Maginnis, John E.	Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Maitland, Sir John	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)	Whitelaw, William
Markham. Major Sir Frank	Robson Brown, Sir William	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Marshall, Douglas	Roots, William	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Marten, Neil	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)	Wise, A. R.
Matthews, Gordon (Merlden)	Russell, Ronald	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	St. Clair, M.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Mawby, Ray	Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan	Woodhouse, C. M.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Scott-Hopkins, James	Woodnutt, Mark
Maydon, Lt. -Cmdr. S. L. C.	Seymour, Leslie	Worsley, Marcus
Mills, Stratton	Sharpies, Richard
Miscampbell, Norman	Shaw, M.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Montgomery, Fergus	Shepherd, William	Mr. Chichestor-Clark and
		Mr. Finlay.

Question put, That the proposed words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 240.

Division No. 79.]	AYES	[10.14 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Bidgood, John C.	Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Aitken, W. T.	Bitten, John	Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)	Biggs- Davison, John	Bryan, Paul
Allason, James	Bingham, R. M.	Buck, Antony
Arbuthnot, John	Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Bullard, Denys
Ashton, Sir Hubert	Bishop, F. P.	Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Atkins, Humphrey	Black, Sir Cyril	Burden, F. A.
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)	Bossom, Hon. Clive	Butcher, Sir Herbert
Barber, Anthony	Bourne-Arton, A.	Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nalrns)
Barlow, Sir John	Box, Donald	Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Barter, John	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt, Hon. John	Cary, Sir Robert
Batsford, Brian	Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward	Channon, H. P. G.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Brewis, John	Chataway, Christopher
Bell, Ronald	Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter	Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)	Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Berkeley, Humphry	Brooman-white, R.	Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Cleaver, Leonard	Hollingworth, John	Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Cole, Norman	Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John	Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Cooke, Robert	Hopkins, Alan	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Cooper, A. E.	Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.	Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Howard, John (Southampton, Test)	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Cordle, John	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Corfield, F. V.	Hughes-Young, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, West)
Costain, A. P.	Hulbert, Sir Norman	Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Coulson, Michael	Hurd, Sir Anthony	Partridge, E.
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)	Iremonger, T. L.	Peel, John
Crawley, Aidan	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Percival, Ian
Critchley, Julian	James, David	Peyton, John
Crowder, F. P.	Jennings, J. C.	pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cunningham, Knox	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Curran, Charles	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Pilkington, Sir Richard
Currie, C. B. H.	Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Pitman, Sir James
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)	Pitt, Dame Edith
Dance, James	Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Pott, Percivall
d'Avigder-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
de Ferranti, Basll	Kerans, Cdr. J. S.	Prior, J. M. L.
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Doughty, Charles	Kershaw, Anthony	Pym, Francis
Drayson, G. B.	Kimball, Marcus	Quennell, Miss J. M.
du Cann, Edward	Kirk, Peter	Ramsden, James
Duncan, Sir James	Kitson, Timothy	Rawilnson, Sir Peter
Eden, John	Lagden, Godfrey	Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Lambton, Viscount	Rees, Hugh
Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.;	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Emery, Peter	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Leather, Sir Edwin	Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Errington, Sir Eric	Leavey, J. A.	Ridsdale, Julian
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Leburn, Gilmour	Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Farey-Jones F. W.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Farr, John	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Robson Brown, Sir William
Fell, Anthony	Lilley, F. J. P.	Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Fisher, Nigel	Lindsay, Sir Martin	Roots, William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Linstead, Sir Hugh	Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Forrest, George	Litchfield, Capt. John	Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Foster, John	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Russell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)	Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)	St. Clair, M.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)		Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Freeth, Denzil	Longbottom, Charles	Scott-Hopkins, James
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Longden, Gilbert	Seymour, Leslie
Cammans, Lady	Loveys, Walter H.	Sharpies, Richard
Gardner, Edward	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Shaw, M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Shepherd, William
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)	MacArthur, Ian	Skeet, T. H. H.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	McLaren, Martin	Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)	McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia	Smithers, Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John	Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Goodhart, Philip	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs)	Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Goodhew, Victor	Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Gough, Frederick	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Spelr, Rupert
Gower, Raymond	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)	Stanley, Hon. Richard
Green, Alan	Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)	Stevens, Geoffrey
Gresham Cooke, R.	Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Niall (Dumfries)	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Maddan, Martin	Stodart, J. A.
Gurden, Harold	Maginnis, John E.	Storey, Sir Samuel
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Maltland, Sir John	Studholme, Sir Henry
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)	Markham, Major Sir Frank	Summers, Sir Spencer
Hare, Rt. Hon. John	Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest	Talbot, John E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)	Marshall, Douglas	Tapsell, Peter
Harrison, Brian (Maldnn)	Marten, Neil	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Mathew, Robert (Honiton)	Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)	Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Harvie Anderson, Miss	Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald	reeling, Sir William
Hastings, Stephen	Mawby, Ray	Temple, John M.
Hay, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Thomas, Sir Leslle (Canterbury)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward	Mills, Stratton	Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)	Miscampbell, Norman	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, 8.)
Hendry, Forbes	Montgomery, Fergus	Thorneycroft. Rt. Hon. Peter
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.	Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Hiley, Joseph	More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Kill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Morgan, William	Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)	Morrison, John	Turner, Colin
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Hirst, Geoffrey	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hobson, Sir John	Neave, Airey	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hocking, Philip N.	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Vane, W. M. F.
Holland, Philip	Nicholson, Sir Geoffrey	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis	Webster, David	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Wakefield, Sir Wavell	Wells, John (Maidstone)	Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Wilder, David	Whitelaw, William	Woodhouse, C. M.
Walker, Peter	Williams, Dudley (Exeter)	Woodnutt, Mark
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)	Worsley, Marcus
Wall, Patrick	Wills, Sir Gerald (Brigwater)
Ward, Dame Irene	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold	Wise, A. R.	Mr. Chichester-Clark and
		Mr. Finlay.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	Milne, Edward
Ainsley, William	Gourlay, Harry	Mitchison, G. R.
Albu, Austen	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Monslow, Walter
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Griffiths, W. (Exchange)	Moody, A. S.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.	Morris, John
Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)	Gunter, Ray	Moyle, Arthur
Bacon, Mies Alice	Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)	Mulley, Frederick
Baird, John	Hamilton, William (West Fife)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Barnett, Guy	Hannan, William	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. philip (Derby, S.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)	Hart, Mrs. Judith	Oliver, G. H.
Beaney, Alan	Hayman, F. H.	Oram, A. E.
Belienger, Rt. Hon. F. J.	Healey, Denis	Oswald, Thomas
Bence, Cyril	Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)	Padley, W. E.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Herbison, Miss Margaret	Paget, R. T.
Benson, Sir George	Hill, J. (Midlothian)	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Blackburn, F.	Hilton, A. v.	Pargiter, G. A.
Blyton, William	Holman, Percy	Parker, John
Boardman, H.	Holt, Arthur	Parkin, B. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Houghton, Douglas	Paton, John
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)	Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)	Pavitt, Laurence
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bowles, Frank	Hoy, James H.	Peart, Frederick
Boyden, James	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Pentland, Norman
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Plummer, Sir Leslie
Bradley, Tom	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Popplewell, Ernest
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Hunter, A. E.	Prentice, R. E.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Hynd, John (Attercliffe)	Probert, Arthur
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Proctor, W. T.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, G.)	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas	Rankin, John
Callaghan, James	Jeger, George	Redhead, E. C.
Carmichael, Neil	Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)	Reid, William
Castle, Mrs. Barbara	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Reynolds, G. W.
Chapman, Donald	Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)	Rhodes, H.
Cliffe, Michael	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Collick, Percy	Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Cronin, John	Kelley, Richard	Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Crosland, Anthony	Kenyon, Clifford	Ross, William
Crossman, R. H. S.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice	King, Dr. Horace	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dalyell, Tam	Lawson, George	Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Darling, George	Ledger, Ron	Skeffington, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Small, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)	Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)	Snow, Julian
Deer, George	Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)	Sorensen, R. W.
Delargy, Hugh	Lipton, Marcus	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dempsey, James	Loughlin, Charles	Spriggs, Leslie
Diamond, John	Lubbock, Eric	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Dodds, Norman	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Stonehouse, John
Donnelly, Desmond	McCann, John	Stones, William
Driberg, Tom	MacColl, James	Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Duffy, A. E. P.	MacDermot, Niall	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.	Mclnnes, James	Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Edelman, Maurice	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Swain, Thomas
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Mesa (Caerphilly)	Mackie, John (Enfield, East)	Swingler, Stephen
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McLeavy, Frank	Symonds, J. B.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)	MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)	Taverne, D.
Evans, Albert	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Finch, Harold	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Fitch, Alan	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Fletcher, Eric	Manuel, Archie	Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)	Mapp, Charles	Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	Marsh, Richard	Thornton, Ernest
Forman, J. C.	Mason, Roy	Thorpe, Jeremy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Mayhew, Christopher	Timmons, John
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mellish, R. J.	Tomney, Frank
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)	Mendelson, J. J.	Wade, Donald
Ginsburg, David	Millan, Bruce	Wainwright, Edwin

Warbey, William	Willey, Frederick	Woof, Robert
Watkins, Tudor	Williams, D. J. (Neath)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Weitzman, David	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)	Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)	Zilllacus, K.
White, Mrs. Eirene	Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Whitlock, William	Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wigg, George	Winterbottom, R, E.	Mr. Short and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.
WiIkins, W. A.	Woodburn, Rt. Hon, A.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, recognising the continuing problem of staffing the schools and the difficult physical conditions under which many schools still have to work, welcomes the notable progress made with the recruitment and supply of teachers and the implementation of the school building programme set out in the White Paper of 1958; and notes with approval the Government action in devoting a steadily rising proportion of the national resources to the public system of education.

c1270
1. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. 39 words
c1271
2. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 40 words