HC Deb 03 July 1967 vol 749 cc1308-35

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)

I beg to move, That this House urges the Government to introduce, as a matter of urgency, measures to increase the supply of teachers in Scotland and to secure a more equitable distribution, especially in areas suffering from part-time education. I hope that at least this Motion will not attract some of the comments made about the previous Motion. Certainly, it should not attract the comment of being the most muddled and misconceived Motion ever placed on the Order Paper. I do not know whether the debate will be as entertaining as was the last debate. I always like listening to a philosophical knock-about by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg).

This is a serious subject which certainly needs to be discussed, though its discussion presents me with certain difficulties which I regret. It is a subject of national concern and yet, unfortunately, I can approach it on the basis of its being a constiuency problem, for the simple reason that the worst teacher shortage, not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom, exists in my constituency.

It also presents a difficulty in that one of my shortcomings is that I am too reasonable. At least, I like to think that I am. I am tested to talk in the exaggerated language common to Parliamentarians—language which is used in the hope that by using it we might get a little action. I am also inhibited in that I have a personal regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and that inhibition is increased by the fact that when everybody else is kicking him I have not the heart to do it.

There are two aspects of teacher shortage that I should like to consider. One is short-term—and this is the point which I mainly want to raise—and the other is long-term. Both problems have to be overcome. In the short-term, there is a difference in the problem as it affects primary and secondary education. May I refer hon. Members to HANSARD of 28th June when, in reply to my Question, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that at mid-June, 3,189 children were in receipt of part-time education, of whom 1,949 were primary children, and all of to primary children were in Glasgow. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1967; Vol. 479, c. 491.] I will come to the secondary school children later.

It seems to me that the part-time education of primary children over the past year—which is the period which gives weight to the argument—has been a Glasgow problem. Unfortunately it is only a Glasgow problem. St. Andrew's House reveals it as a Glasgow problem. But in Glasgow itself it is broken down into certain areas, and I have the misfortune to represent the area with the worst teacher shortage. The figures themselves do not illustrate all the problems. For example, the E.I.S. says that in the east side of the city—not a very defined geographical description—1,340 pupils were receiving part-time education, which means that 80 per cent. of the children in Glasgow in receipt of part-time education are in the east end—a loose description. In addition, 217 teachers had left since January, 1966. It is not just the statistics that prove the case.

If we examine what takes place in one primary school in this bad area, it might illustrate the point that I am making. This is a typical new primary school with fewer than 1,000 pupils; there are 27 classes, and 26 teachers. On the face of it, that seems quite reasonable, but during the seven years that this school has been in existence—and, as I say, it is a fairly typical school in the area—there have been 120 changes in the staff. This is positively frightening.

Bad enough as they are, the statistics conceal the damage which is being done in the under-privileged areas, for almost half of the staff at present in the school are probationers in their first year. We are delighted to have probationers; they are excellent girls; but it is hardly fair that of a staff of from 25 to 30 teachers half should be apprentices. Obviously, they are a lot better than not having teachers at all. They do excellent work, and some of them are fine girls, but this seems to be an aspect of the matter which has not been examined properly. In an area like this it is understandable.

I do not want to make any comment about the recent half-day strike, or the fact that the E.I.S. is paying three guineas to each of its members who were out on strike. No wonder that one of the teachers was prompted to say that this was a crazy set-up—that she should be getting more in strike pay for half a day than she got in salary for a full day's work. But this is the kind of absurd situation we get into. Unfortunately, that teacher has emigrated to Canada. I ought to add that on this matter I have been quoting only from the Press.

However, we seem to have established the fact that there is a shortage of teachers, and that there is part-time education, and underlying all this there is the very serious problem of the damage which can be done to the children because of the frequent changes in staff and because of the inexperience of the staff. So I think that a case has been established for some kind of special action in primary schools, especially as the problem is narrowed down to the City of Glasgow and to certain parts of Glasgow.

What about the position in secondary schools? I know that there are dangers in quoting anything which appears in the Press—and it is better that I should say that instead of my right hon. Friend's having always to say it; but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is quoted as saying that in spite of difficulties, Glasgow is not the worst staffed authority in Scotland. I have already qualified that by admitting the dangers of quoting from the Press, and especially reports about such an unpopular figure as the Secretary of State for Scotland happens to be, but, nevertheless, I would like him to clear up this point, because since there is no part-time education in primary schools outside Glasgow, he obviously must have been referring to secondary education.

There are only three authorities in the whole of Scotland—in June of this year—which have part-time education in secondary schools. I would certainly urge that my right hon. Friend should examine the figures in greater detail, because it seems to me that in Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, which are the other two authorities referred to, the problem is like Glasgow's, arising in particular areas, particular schools. The Roman Catholic schools, I think, are badly hit in Dunbartonshire and in Renfrewshire. Renfrewshire is represented most adequately at the Scottish Office through members of the Government, and, therefore, I do not need to plead the case for Renfrewshire, or for Dunbartonshire, but I would certainly like to see greater examination in detail of the secondary schools which are suffering from teacher shortage to find out if we know the reasons for the shortage in those areas. It is complicated because, obviously, some of the other authorities will have junior secondaries, and this does not apply to the area I am dealing with. Therefore, as I say, I think that there is a need for a bit more examination into the causes of the problem. The damage in secondary schools is just as great.

Again, in looking at the figures of how many children are suffering from part-time education, we are not even getting at the problem, because in the secondary schools which are in the most difficult position at the moment over part-time education there are the greatest number of uncertificated teachers. Many of these uncertificated teachers are good teachers, and I would go so far as to say that some of them are better than the certificated ones. I can say things which it would be indiscreet for the Secretary of State to say. I am not condemning all the uncertificated teachers. I am merely saying that if it is true, as teachers claim, that uncertificated teachers are a menace—which is doubtful, in these general terms—we need to examine those schools in those areas, because it is not only a question of part-time education, but of something much more damaging, as can he shown in primary education.

As I have said, I am a very reasonable person, and I recognise that the Secretary of State has difficulties, not the least of which are the teachers' organisations themselves. I think that it is quite pointless to raise a subject like this unless one makes some reference to the teachers' organisations. They are in some ways a menace. It seems incredible that there should be more demarcation lines drawn in this profession than in any other single trade or profession. It seems to me a tragedy that educated and intelligent people should have this proliferation of teachers' organisations each claiming to represent its own particular group. This is one of the headaches.

I sympathise with my right hon. Friend. It prevents us, I think, from making the progress which is needed in education in Scotland, because we are always having to deal—obviously, I am not saying we should not—with a situation where one body is trying to out-vote or out-play another. It is a very unreal situation, in which to try to get to terms and to arrange discussions and solutions in co-operation, when one teachers' body is constantly having to look over its shoulder to see whether a rival body has outbid or out-gunned it in terms of popular support.

I think that I should go back to the subject of primary education and, in particular, to the Roberts Report. I certainly would like to pay a tribute to Dame Jean Roberts and the members of her Committee for the excellence of their Report. I do not think that anyone could criticise the practical approach which they have made to this problem. I should like to quote paragraph 71 of the Report, because this sums it up—and this is why I do not want to be too critical of the Secretary of State. It says that Our membership comprised a wide variety of knowledge and experience of educational matters, and we are not inexperienced in committee work. It is true to say, however, that few of us can recall having had to deal with such an intractable problem as that presented by our remit. Having personal knowledge of the leader of that Committee, and knowing something of the problems which have been tackled by her on the local authority in the past, I think that that is saying something, and that most of us would recognise that this is a really difficult problem.

I do not think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have anything at all to contribute to the subject in the light of their failures in the past and the rather half-baked schemes which were produced in an attempt to tackle this problem.

What is it that I ask my right hon. Friend to do? First of all, it is criminal for those of us who believe in some degree of social justice to allow schools to be over-staffed when other schools are under-staffed and I should like to know whether some of these over-staffed areas and schools have been identified. We know that there has been an examination of areas where there is staff shortage in primary and secondary schools, and a shortage of uncertificated teachers.

A practical suggestion would be for the training colleges to show a greater interest in sending out students, not to fill teaching plates but to get training in the schools, but it must be remembered that if a school at present under-staffed does not have a good department in which students can be trained it will not get the students from the training colleges. I believe that a bit of interest shown by the Scottish Office, in conjunction with the training colleges and the schools themselves, in a co-operative approach would produce results.

It is known that many students go back after qualifying to the schools where they received their training, even though the schools may be some distance from their homes, because they like the schools, the staff, and so on. That might make a practical contribution to the solution of the problem. Something like the Roberts Report's recommendation should be introduced, if only on a trial basis and for a limited period.

I am rather surprised at the official attitude to travelling expenses. I know that up to now there has been a genuine doubt whether local authorities could pay teachers' travelling expenses. In reply to a Question that I put down, the Secretary of State said that he understood that some authorities were paying expenses. Does that reply mean that the Secretary of State does not have to give approval, and, if he does not have to give approval, that it does not attract grant? From some hon. Members' comments, it would seem that Glasgow did not realise the position. There is an element of confusion on this subject that should be cleared up.

I would be delighted if the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary would visit the east end of the city to examine conditions in detail. Personal contact is invaluable. I do not minimise the tremendous amount of work done by this Government for education, or the difficulties they have faced, but I hope that I will not just be told that there is an increase in the number of teachers coming out of the training colleges and a vast increase in the number of students. I recognise that, but I do not think that the urgency of the problem in the difficult areas has been communicated to the Government. Despite the Government's efforts, the position is no better than it was two and a half years ago.

As I say, I discount any political capital that any hon. Member opposite may try to make out of the position. A tremendous amount of work has been done in general, but my complaint is that the benefits have not yet reached Easterhouse. I realise the difficulties there are at this time in asking for a bonus for certain teachers or schools in certain areas. The prices and incomes policy has been a complication, to put it no higher, and I dare say that negotiations for the salaries of English teachers is a complication, to put it no higher.

Nevertheless, I beg my right hon. Friend at least to give me some encouragement that some kind of policy will be announced in the near future that will give some satisfaction to teachers and parents alike in those areas that face such a very difficult problem.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)

I am sure that all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies will be very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) has exploited his good fortune in the Ballot to introduce this subject for debate. He has dealt largely with the short-term problem and has quoted figures that I do not for a moment dispute. Whether or not the case has been stated in terms that might give offence in some quarters, there is no doubt about the urgency of the problem.

Making all allowance for the steps that the Government have already taken, and which are set out in greater detail in the 1966 Report, something fundamental still requires to be done, and I want to address my remarks to that part of the Motion which calls … attention to the shortage of teachers in Scotland; and … urges the Government to introduce … measures to increase the supply of teachers in Scotland … Reference has been made somewhere to the fact that because of the increased number of teachers that have been coming from the training colleges for the last few years, demand and supply of teachers in primary schools will probably be equal in about 1968–69.

But there is the other problem of the raising of the school-leaving age to 16. That announcement was made by the previous Administration in January, 1964—some months before the General Election, but I make no point about that. They made the decision, and this Government have endorsed that decision not once or twice but three or four times, and despite the difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend, I hope that that decision will be reaffirmed, because the country as a whole will pay less of a penalty if the age is raised than if it is postponed once more. Some of us recall the doubts and hesitations about the raising of the school-leaving age to 15 after the First World War and the increasing objections to raising the age now. I suppose that similar objections were made before the introduction of the Education Act, 1870.

My starting point is paragraph 11 of the valuable Report on Measures to Improve the Supply of Teachers in Scotland. It was produced by the Knox Committee in 1959. It contained various recommendations to the last Conservative Government—and I do not make a party point here. Those recommendations were valuable and some of the minor ones were accepted. But two of the principal ones were not and I want to return to them because, as a matter of urgency, they should be put into effect.

Paragraph 11 did not merely refer to recruiting a certain number of teachers. It used the words: Although in our recommendations we are primarily concerned with the problems of the next ten years,"— I remind the House that this was in 1959— we consider that, since major educational advances are still to be made, none of our recommendations will lead to any danger of over-supply even in the more distant future. I have tried to estimate the number of teachers who will be needed by a certain time. The stark fact is that our society will go on needing an increasing number of teachers. The Knox Committee estimated that, even with no major change in policy, with all vacancies filled, oversized classes eliminated and no uncertified teachers employed, we would in 1961 need 3,000 teachers. That number has increased by this time and, of course the school-leaving age is to be raised.

The Government have repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to raise the school-leaving age and it is thought that, by 1970, to meet that fact alone, 4,000 teachers will be needed and that the total figure needed then will be about 6,000 teachers. Despite these figures, I do not think that the situation is quite as bad as would appear. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State say: I do not under-estimate difficulties, particularly over the supply of teachers, but the Government are making every effort to ensure that the provisions made by education authorities are adequate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1287.] It is not generally known that the birthrate in Scotland is increasing. It is higher than in most other European countries. So the growth in the school population, coupled with the redistribution of people into new towns and overspill areas, is adding to the problems of accommodation. Indeed, it is adding to the problem of the maldistribution of teachers in Glasgow itself.

I understand that the Government have already made it possible, with the consent and agreement of the teachers, for the admission of men to college diploma courses, in the same way as has hitherto applied to women, in the training colleges. I welcome that proposal, but it is not the whole solution. I hope that there will be a continuous sifting of such entrants to the training colleges for possible applicants and entrants to the universities themselves.

The expansion of training colleges is going on. To be fair, some of this began under the last Conservative Government, but a major capital programme has been entered into by the present Government. There is the expansion of facilities at the central institutions and an intensification of the special recruitment scheme. I sometimes wonder what the position would have been if that scheme had not been undertaken, for it has made it possible for thousands of people to go into teaching from other walks of life.

I come now to the two major recommendations of the Knox Committee, to which I have already referred. The first, which is growing in importance, was that an allowance should be made to men graduates coming from universities and entering the training colleges. When, graduates from universities go into industry and other walks of life, including Government Departments, they become immediately employable, and I believe that such applicants for teaching ought to be treated on the same basis.

We are delighted to hear of the experiment to be carried out by Stirling University, in which it is endeavouring to combine the academic training necessary for graduates with teacher-training, which, at the moment, lasts for a year. It is trying to telescope the two and make the overall period shorter by six months. We shall watch that experiment with great interest.

I wonder why teaching is selected as probably the only case where a graduate coming from a university and going into teacher-training for a year does not receive an allowance. Why should not education authorities be encouraged to make an allowance so that the total pool of teachers may be increased? With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not hold the view that the proposed allowance of £100 will add one teacher to the pool. All it will do—and I know that this is my hon. Friend's immediate problem—is to attract people from the surrounding areas of Glasgow, probably leaving them short. Indeed, it may give rise to internal dissension among teachers within Glasgow itself. Information from some of those I have talked to about it is that not all teachers would welcome that proposal.

If we are to have money allocated for this alleviation and that, it would be better to keep it together and use it for a really purposive move, such as the next proposal to which I now come. This is the question of teachers who have retired. The Knox Committee proposed that teachers who retire should continue to receive full pension with full salary if they chose to go on teaching. After all, why not?

A teacher can leave teaching and go into other public bodies and corporations and still receive his full pension as well as his new salary. He can go to the electricity board or the gas board or into private industry and keep his pension. The only thing he cannot do without sacrificing his pension is to continue in teaching where, after his years of experience and training, he is able to do so good a job.

A teacher on retirement can leave his elementary or primary school and enter a private school and still receive his pension as well as a salary. The converse is also true. A man who comes out of the Services with a small pension, and is qualified to be or trained as a teacher, can retain his full Service pension as well as the salary as a teacher.

It is said that this would vitiate a great principle. I do not know what the principle is, but it is certainly not logical. The problem is of such great urgency that I would be delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend what other reason can be advanced against this proposal. During the war policemen who had retired and were out in other fields, as a matter of great national emergency, were asked to resume their jobs. They did so and received their salary and pension.

I cannot understand why, in this grave emergency, we cannot have the position re-examined with a view to doing something about it and accepting not an ill-thought-out proposal or suggestion made from these benches, but from the angle of the recommendations of the Knox Committee made up, as it is, of people not only in the profession but outsiders. I know that these two proposals are long-term, but the overall cost of re-enlisting such teachers who are there already would be less than some of the proposals which are being canvassed elsewhere.

I apologise for speaking at such length, but I should like my right hon. Friend to give us his views. I hope that he will be able to say, first, whether further consideration has been or will be given to the re-enlistment of teachers who are retiring and, secondly, the introduction of a grant to graduates who enter the training colleges.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) who introduced this debate, because the subject is one of very grave concern to all in Scotland. He highlighted a situation of which no one in Scotland can be particularly proud, but, none the less, it is right that we should discuss it on the Floor of the House in an effort to try to get, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) has said, as many ideas as possible put forward on how to meet what is a very urgent situation.

Not knowing so well the area of Scotland of the hon. Member for Provan, I find it particularly worrying the more I hear that kind of situation described. In the light of the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970, one is inclined to think in terms of the number of extra teachers who will be required for the extra pupils at the age of 15 to 16. Very often we forget that the problem of teacher shortage is equally great at the primary school end of education.

This end of education is vital. This is the time when a child is starting school and it is first impressions at school in his first one or two years which will form his whole attitude towards education over the next 11 or 12 years of school life. To go to school for part of a day and to find a teacher changing perhaps after a week—I am one who believes very much in the good influence of a good teacher—is bound to create a most unsettling effect on any child entering school.

That is an effect which will not be erased, however good education later may be. The extent to which that child may benefit from education later can be severely limited by lack of proper education in those early and most formative years. I am glad that that particular aspect of teacher shortage was highlighted so well.

Moving to the question of secondary schools in relation to the raising of the school-leaving age in 1970–71, I am most concerned about one point which I raised in debate on education last summer in the Scottish Grand Committee. It concerns the teachers required for secondary schools who will be largely made up of graduates. To be ready for the raising of the school-leaving age and the increase in school population in 1970–71 a graduate would have to have entered university last October. Therefore, we have passed the critical year so far as the recruitment of students to enter university is concerned. If we are to have sufficient graduate teachers it means that they will have to come from other sectors of the teaching profession into the secondary schools or they will have to be recruited graduates from outwith the profession at the present time.

The hon. Gentleman is right when he said that we have to adopt a far more practical approach. We have to get down to earth and look at where we can get the teachers from and look at practical and new ways, as the hon. Member for Maryhill said, of attracting them. In the Roberts Committee's Report we had this practical sensible approach. As the hon. Member for Provan said, many of the things recommended in the Roberts Committee's Report were precisely the things which it went out to do.

What makes it all the more astounding is that so much time has passed since that Committee reported and up to now the Government have not done one single thing to implement any of the recommendations. We appreciate that the Government have difficulties in persuading the profession to accept the different recommendations, but what concerns me is that in a situation of such tremendous urgency the Government seems to lack the will to overcome them.

I am sure that other hon. Members, in common with myself, received a circular from the Educational Institute of Scotland this morning in which it said that last autumn it accepted the Report in principle and that it had had discussions with the Secretary of State. I gather that on most major points there was complete agreement about the implementation of the Report. That being so, I find it even more extraordinary that the delay should be so long in the Government doing so little about it.

The special recruitment scheme is one thing which I think the Government could adopt on a much more practical approach. I had occasion last year, as the Under-Secretary knows, to raise the case of a friend of mine who wished to enter the teaching profession. It was his experience which highlighted for me that it is not as attractive as many of us think it is to enter the teaching profession from another profession or line of business late in life. My friend, who has family commitments, a house commitment, and so on, had to suffer a considerable drop in salary over a period of three years, because he chose to go to university to take a degree. It meant a considerable financial sacrifice for himself and his family in order to answer one of the calls which his country was asking him to do.

What concerned me in that case was that it was not just himself who was having to make sacrifices, because he was doing something that he wanted to do, but the fall in income imposed a severe hardship on his wife, who had to manage the household and on his children who, obviously, were accustomed to a certain way of life. This is the kind of factor which the Government have to take into account in considering the practical effect on people and their way of life if they answer the call of Government and enter the teaching profession.

The kind of more practical approach which I should like to see is not simply related to allowances to people entering the profession under the Special Recruitment Scheme. Such allowances should not be attached just to matters like the number of children, the number of dependants, and so on, but related much more widely to the commitments which a potential recruit to the profession may have. The financial commitments of two men or women may be the same in terms of their dependants, but they may he quite different when one takes into account the fact that one is buying his house and paying off a mortgage while the other lives in a council house.

Another factor which should be considered is where a recruit lives and how far he has to travel. I know that allowances are made for travel, but there are many incidental expenses which are not taken into account in the Special Recruitment Scheme. I should like to see much more discretion given to the kind of allowances which can be made, because in that way a vast untapped source of potential recruits to the teaching profession could be created.

Apart from getting more teachers, it must be realised that men and women who have experience in other professions, in business and in industry, can bring to the teaching profession not only themselves as extra teachers to swell the total number, but a width of experience in other walks of life from which education generally and other teachers can benefit. In relation to the Special Recruitment Scheme, I think that this is one sphere in which the Government could adopt a more practical and helpful approach if we are to get more teachers. As I said earlier, we have to look outside the teaching profession, beyond the students who are about to enter universities, if we are to get a sufficient number of teachers for 1970–71.

What concerns me over this matter of teacher shortage is, as I have said already, that the Government seem to lack any real sense of urgency in many ways. For example, in dealing with the Roberts Report, they show a weakness of will and a lack of determination to overcome some of the practical obstacles in answering the problem of teacher recruitment. It is fair to say that they were not so weak about non-graduate men being recruited to the teaching profession, and eventually they forced the hands of the teachers' organisations. That was a good thing, because it will help us to increase the numbers of teachers in Scotland.

That is one example of the Government holding out and showing a slightly greater sense of urgency than they have in other matters, but that example stands by itself. We need a great many more examples of the Government acting more quickly and with more determination. Only in that way have we any hope of answering the problem.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)

I take part in the debate because I have thought about this problem for a number of years. It is one of the most difficult ever to have faced Governments of both parties.

At one time I attempted to do some research on it with graduates leaving the university where I was teaching. I asked them to fill in a form saying which occupation they intended to enter, and if they did not intend to enter teaching I asked them to specify why not. I received a large number of interesting replies. When I came to analyse them, one basic fact stood out. It is that we are struggling in part against the ethos of our own society. We give tremendous prestige to people earning large salaries, those going into exciting jobs in research and in industry, and those in certain types of professions. The tremendous respect which we used to have for the school-master has declined to some extent.

I was depressed by the number of answers to my questionnaire which said in reply to the question asking the graduate's intended occupation, "Teaching, if nothing better offers". In a sense, this epitomises the problem for many people when we are struggling to change our values and to get back to the situation where those who look after and mould the minds of children receive the respect to which they are entitled, and certainly more respect than gentlemen who apply their minds to advertising techniques and commercial prosperity of that kind.

In moving his Motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that we were facing two problems. Unfortunately, they became rather intertwined in his speech. The first problem is that of increasing the total number of available teachers. The second is the different one of the distribution of the pool of available teachers among the various education authorities in Scotland. The two problems must be distinguished, because it would be very easy to take measures to redistribute our teachers which might have the effect of reducing the total number available. I was disturbed at his suggestion about clamping down on over-staffed schools, in which he included schools where the ratio is reasonably good. If we did that, it might have the effect of reducing the total number of teachers in Scotland.

The problems should be dealt with separately, and that is why I welcome the ideas of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He suggested that, first of all, we should increase the number of teachers. The difficulty here is mainly the financial position of the country. It is fairly clear that we shall not get many more graduates to come in. The propaganda of the teaching profession in our universities has improved enormously in the last year or two, and there has been a much greater effort to show people the value of teaching. However, the 51 per cent. of graduates whom we get into the teaching profession would be hard to increase substantially, given the tremendous pull of other professions and occupations.

One obvious solution is that suggested by my hon. Friend, that we try to stop people retiring by means of the technique which he described. I should be very interested if the Minister could give us any idea of how much it would cost to offer a pension plus pay to teachers in this category, because that would determine the whole feasibility of such an approach.

I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that we need to improve the Special Recruitment Scheme. However, there are one or two peculiar difficulties in that connection. A large number of people of diverse experience are taken into the scheme, and that is the intention, because it is a scheme to bring into teaching people who have spent five or ten years in other occupations and come to the conclusion that perhaps teaching is a more worthwhile way of spending their lives. They become more mature, and they turn to teaching, but it is not always evident that they have the capacity to make teachers. If we offered them all the teacher's starting pay when they came into the scheme, it would cost a fantastic amount of money, and a lot of it might be spent on people who did not end up in the profession.

The last figures that I have seen were given by the previous Joint Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), now Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs. Speaking in 1965, she said that in the previous two years some 10,000 people had been recruited by means of the Special Recruitment Scheme, but she could not say whether more than 500 of the 10,000 ultimately would emerge as teachers. Such a situation clearly affects the amount of money which one is prepared to put into a scheme of this kind. If the selective processes could be improved, I should like to see a recruit paid the teacher's starting salary whilst on probation and undergoing training.

Another matter which I should like the Minister to reconsider is the reclassification of the umbrella term of "uncertificated teachers". Sometimes it covers people with high qualifications and long experience trained at English colleges or even overseas. I know of one case involving an American woman married to a British citizen who is regarded as uncertificated even though she was doing teacher training in the United States and is a highly qualified person. We should break down the figure to show those who are not technically qualified according to Scottish qualifications and those who are unsatisfactorily trained as teachers, who have not the real capacity to teach, and whom we want to replace. We should re-classify the other people.

This does not give us a large number of suggestions for increasing the pool of teachers apart from the use of retiring teachers, Special Recruitment Scheme and intensive efforts to get graduates, which are the only ways we can set about the matter given the present position. In the longer run it is a question of altering the status of the profession and the attitude of our society to teachers, but that is too long-term and difficult to tackle in the next year or two.

If those suggestions to some extent increase the pool we come to the problem of the distribution of teachers. As I have said, I would regret any attempt to direct teachers or prohibit certain authorities from hiring them, because that might reduce the number of teachers available in toto, and we need them all to deal with the problem of raising the school-leaving age. I suggest that we must ultimately accept the principle that some parts of Scotland are less pleasant to work in, to teach in, or to do anything else in than others, and that therefore we cannot expect to get a reasonable distribution of teachers if they are paid equal amounts.

That is why the Roberts Report is fundamentally entirely correct to say that we must offer a financial incentive where the environment is bad, where teaching problems are difficult and where perhaps the burden of pupils per teacher is already particularly heavy. I do not imagine that this will lead to many teachers leaving highly-staffed areas or areas with a good ratio of teachers to pupils and going to the other areas, but I think that it will lead to teachers who start in those other areas not moving out at the earliest opportunity, which is part of the problem there.

About £22 million has been made available in Scotland to meet the problem of raising the school-leaving age. I hope that the Government will consider spending it not so much on school building but on increasing the teaching force. We can operate with new or better buildings and more teachers, but with no teachers we cannot operate at all. If the money is available, I ask my right hon. Friend if there will be any chance of utilising it as the Roberts Report suggests—although I would go a little further myself in keeping on teachers who reach retirement age, and making the Special Recruitment Scheme more attractive and far-reaching. I wish that I could find more proposals to put before the House.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

This has been a useful and constructive debate. I know that the Secretary of State wishes to reply fully, and out of courtesy to him and to the House I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as I can. However, there is a number of points that has emerged in the debate which I should like to emphasise, and one or two others which I can perhaps contribute myself.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has just said, particularly in view of his academic background. He may have seen some American studies on the changing attitude of the university population in America to their future careers. It was encouraging to see how education has come up the list of first choice over the past few years, whereas other occupations have gone down.

I do not share the hon. Gentleman's disdain—I hope that I do not over-state it—for commerce and its attractions for young men. The least of the reasons I would advance for that is that the activity of commerce very largely finances the education we need. However, there is a great problem of the attitude of young people towards education as a career. I often wonder whether we give enough attention to the conflicting attractions offered to young people at such a critical moment of their lives. One has only to visit any university to see the recruiting teams from one source or another all competing for the trained and educated mind which, alas, is still a commodity in very short supply in this country.

The House will congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) not only on his luck in the Ballot, but on opening the debate so constructively. We on this side of the House agree with almost everything he says, although I think that he over-stated his case when he said that he had a certain amount of regard for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We on this side feel that the right hon. Gentleman's performance in education has been disappointing.

I think that the hon. Gentleman was wise to choose this subject, because, as he pointed out, he suffers particularly in his constituency from the problem of part-time education; nearly 2,000 children in his constituency receive only part-time education. I know that the problem is not new, but it is very disturbing that it still continues when we face not only the continuing shortage of teachers, but the enormous problem which 1970 will present.

I think that the primary school problem is not thought of and discussed enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, it is at the primary stage that the whole foundation of education in the formal sense is laid. If we deprive our children at that stage, how much more we deprive our society in the end.

I hope that we can spend more time in the future—perhaps we can do so tomorrow morning—on the problems of primary education. The Registrar-General's figures projected into the future show that the strain of numbers of children in the future at primary schools will increase sharply, and all today's speeches have shown how serious is the present shortage of teachers. At a time when we would have hoped to see the total teaching strength increasing the increase is very small. It increased by only 830 last year in primary and secondary schools, which is no more than a drop in the ocean of our need.

I am glad that tribute has been paid to Dame Jean Roberts, whose Committee published its Report last July. I echo what my hon. Friend said about the extraordinary delay by the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. I know that he has been holding consultations, and I hope that he will tell us this evening something about their result. It is a year since the Report was published. The position is desperate and I hope that he can at last give the House at least some information.

I referred to the challenge of 1970. There we meet the twin problem which was identified so clearly by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian—on the one hand, the problem of the total number of teachers and, on the other, the problem of deployment, which was the central point that led to the setting up of the Roberts Committee.

I wish to deal for a moment with the pool of teachers. I am very worried by the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave me in replies to Questions last week. There are now about 18,500 certificated teachers in local authority secondary schools. In 1973, it is expected that the number will be no less than 22,700, but by then the number of children in the secondary schools will have risen sharply, partly because of the natural growth of the school population and partly because of the impact of raising the school-leaving age in 1970–71. The number of children at secondary schools in Scotland will rise from 271,000 to 364,000 in 1973. Therefore, the number of children will rise by 34 per cent. while the number of certificated teachers will rise by only 23 per cent.

Not only is the present problem acute, but it will become even more acute over the next six years. I do not want to be alarmist, but it would be highly irresponsible for any hon. Member to think that all was well and that we could drift on towards 1970 knowing that things would come right in the end. At present, they show very little sign of coming right in the end.

I agree that it was a right decision to announce the raising of the school-leaving age. I agree that it was right for the Secretary of State to reaffirm that decision on several occasions. It would be wrong, however, not to recognise the enormous problems which exist and which could undermine the educational benefit of the decision to raise the school-leaving age unless the most urgent action is taken now; and there is practically no time left.

We have heard some useful proposals today. I should like to know whether one or two other matters could be considered. Perhaps the Secretary of State would say whether he sees scope for further encouragement of the married women teachers' recruitment scheme. I know that this has been going ahead quite well—it would be wrong not to call attention to that—but I wonder whether more encouragement could be given, particularly to married women who are mothers in providing domestic help or facilities to look after their children while they are teaching.

There has been reference to the Special Recruitment Scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State can give us some greater information than it was possible to provide in the 1966 Report. I trust that he will be able to tell us whether there is any prospect of making the scheme more attractive to people working in outside jobs, probably at higher pay, so that they will become more readily an important source of recruitment over the next few years.

It is very tempting to talk about statistics; I have been guilty of that to some extent. But we are dealing, not with statistics and figures, but with children and children's lives and the pattern of education which we want to provide for them. We must consider the sort of children who will be affected by the increase in the school-leaving age in the early 1970s. They are by their very nature reluctant. They will be staying on at school, not voluntarily, but because they will be statutorily required to do so. One should ask whether these children will require a larger measure of individual attention and care than is required on average today.

Will these children present a much greater strain on the teaching profession than their numbers might indicate because of the sort of children they are, namely, children staying on at school reluctantly and, moreover, big children who are maturing fast and perhaps presenting an extra strain on the administration of the schools?

I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the question of attitudes. I say to him in the friendliest way that the prospects would be improved if his attitude were, perhaps, seen to be more understanding than it is. I will not go over his handling of the salary award last year, which did harm, or his reference of it to the Prices and Incomes Board. Recently, we have had the handling of the arbitration matter which we have debated at length in Committee and which has upset the profession considerably and quite unnecessarily. More recently, we have had the long delay in doing anything visible about the Roberts Report.

What has emerged today is a situation in which primary education is threatened by a shortage of teachers, not only in Glasgow, but elsewhere at the stage when the pattern of formal education starts. This situation threatens the structure of secondary education in facing the enormous challenge of 1970. I know that the Secretary of State understands these problems, but I hope that he will tell us that he will take action and will demonstrate a greater sense of urgency than he has shown in the past.

6.44 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

We have taken more action than the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and his colleagues ever took, because they decided to raise the school-leaving age and did nothing about it. We had report after report and speech after speech, but they made absolutely no impact on the problem.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) on taking this opportunity to raise what is to him and certainly to all of us on this side of the House a very important matter. I intended to deal with this matter at considerable length tomorrow, but I welcome the chance to discuss it now. No one can afford to be complacent about the shortage of teachers and its effects; and that is certainly not the Government's position. It is our children who are in the schools. My hon. Friend speaks from a good deal of knowledge of the general problem and of the situation in Glasgow. He spoke in constructive and helpful way. That is something to be welcomed in a debate of this kind. I also welcome the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh).

It is easy to focus attention on one or two particular aspects and to imply that action on them will produce a solution. The fact is that there is no simple straightforward solution to the problem. It is a mistake for anyone to suggest that the special recruitment scheme or, still less, the Roberts Report and its implementation give an answer to all the problems. We must increase the supply of teachers over the country as a whole. This is what I and the Government are determined to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Provan dealt particularly with the situation in Glasgow. His figures were right and his description of the shortage in Glasgow was right. But it is not really a Glasgow shortage; it is a shortage within parts of Glasgow. It is wrong to say that there are places where it is more pleasant to teach. I can think of places in Glasgow in which it is very pleasant indeed to teach. There are many schools in Glasgow which are well staffed by any standards.

One of the paradoxes is that although the supply of teachers has been increasing year by year, the last estimate of the shortage of teachers was only marginally lower than the figure for the previous year—3,660 in 1966 compared with 3,700 in 1965. There are two main reasons for this. The first is wastage. There is the inevitable outflow from the teaching service, with women teachers leaving to bring up families and older teachers retiring. We have considered the point raised, not for the first time, by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill and repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian. The cost is very considerable and it has its consequences for people in other services. This is one of the tremendous difficulties. But I hope that hon. Members will note that we announced on 15th June a change which should improve the salaries of retired teachers.

Secondly, the demands on the teaching force are constantly increasing. This reflects in part the growing numbers of pupils in the schools, not least in the later stages of secondary education. In part it springs from the improvement in standards of staffing and the development of new types of course. We introduced new curricula, with their new demands and new teachers, for example, in retail distribution for which the traditional teacher pattern does not make effective provision. My hon. Friends should appreciate that we have looked very carefully into many of these aspects.

Since the Special Recruitment Scheme was introduced in 1951 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security, whom I am pleased to see present, over 5,000 teachers have been found. I can remember people scoffing at the idea that we would find teachers in this way, but we have found 5,000. I assure my hon. Friends that in the past few years we have had every indication that it is still a success.

The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) suggested that we should look again at the scheme and that there was hardship. The number of inquiries which we receive and the number of people we enrol for the scheme show that it would be quite wrong to suggest that because in one or two individual cases whe have not been able to meet particular needs, there is something vitally wrong. Frankly, we could not meet all the individual circumstances of all applicants.

These are the grants which are paid. A married or an unmarried student living in lodgings gets £340; for the maintenance of a wife, another £190; for the maintenance of his first child, £80, for a second child £60, and £55 for each subsequent child. If they are over 25—and that people tend to be if they have two or three children—applicants over the age of 25 may qualify for a mature student's allowance of up to £100 a year. That is not ungenerous. It is because of this, I think, that we are able to attract so many inquiries and, from the inquiries, to get people into training. Indeed, not only have we a considerable number in training, but we have a similar number taking qualifications at the colleges and universities.

We all want to see expansion and diversification of the work of the schools, but it adds to the problem of supply and demand of teachers. The same can be said of the proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 16 in the school session 1970–71. That is still our intention.

What I do not like is to have the hon. Member opposite telling me that October last year was the last date for someone to enter in order to be ready for 1970–71. It was his Government which, unprompted, made the declaration to raise the school-leaving age. I think that the party opposite did that in March, 1964.

Mr. Hannan

It was in January, 1963.

Mr. Ross

That makes it even worse, but I fancy that it was 1964.

We had all these shortages then. The Glasgow position was, if anything, probably worse than it is today for part-time education. We had the bottleneck in relation to qualifications. The party opposite tried—not the previous Secretary of State, but the one before him, Lord Muirshiel—to do something about this, but he did not get the support of the profession for it and it lapsed thereafter.

Hon. Members opposite should be the last to say that we have no sense of urgency. We have shown a sense of urgency. I assure them that it was not easy to take the decision, especially for one who himself was a teacher, that we should depart from our traditional standards of qualification for teaching in Scotland by which all men should be graduates and that we should introduce the three-year diploma course. We did it, however, in the light of the facts and of our proven need to get men, and to get them into primary schools, and the help that this will give us in other areas.

The statistical forecast has often been quoted. The raising of the school-leaving age will itself increase the demand for teachers by something like 4,000, but with the increasing tendency towards voluntary staying-on after the age of 15—this is not something which will hit us suddenly in 1971; children are already staying on—the final jump to the age of 16 may not be as great as was originally expected. We believe, however, that the only real way to deal with the problem is to increase the intake of teachers by all the means that are open to us. This is our main preoccupation.

One of the most encouraging facts is the continued increase in the number of students coming forward for teacher training. Colleges of education currently have a student population of 9,200, or more than double the figure of eight years ago. Expansion is taking place and credit is due for the fact that no fully qualified candidates have been refused places at the colleges for the three-year primary course or the course for graduates and specialist diploma holders.

We have a large and continuing programme for the development of the colleges of education, designed not only to increase capacity, but to raise the quality of the teaching facilities. Places like Jordanhill have been under considerable pressure in recent years. In December, 1964, there were only seven colleges. Now, there are 10. Three new colleges have been built at Ayr, Falkirk and Hamilton, and we are presently expanding the Ayr and Falkirk colleges to increase their capacity from 600 to 900 students each.

At Cramond, a new college of physical education for women has replaced the Aberdeen college at a cost of £1 million. A new college for Roman Catholic women teachers will come into use next session at Bearsden in place of the existing college at Dowanhill. It is expected to cost £1.6 million. A new college is planned to replace the existing college in Duhdee. At Jordanhill, new centres for in-service training and further education teacher training are planned at an estimated cost of £1 million, in addition to additional expenditure of £1.6 million which is proposed for improved facilities for physical education teacher training, for science and mathematics teaching and for extensive improvements to administrative and communal accommodation. At Moray House, major extensions are also in hand at an estimated cost of £1.5 million.

In all, capital projects to the value of £3.6 million are at the construction stage and work to the value of £7.9 million is planned. Does this show a lack of urgency and interest? Had this work been started and gone head before the announcements were made and we were seen to be in a far better position, it would have been fair for hon. Members opposite now to criticise, but we are facing the position and getting on with it as quickly as we can.

The number of women entering the college of education diploma course for primary school teachers has increased markedly from 1,312 in 1961 to 2,148 to 1966 last year and we expect the total intake in the diploma course in October this year to be no less than 2,700. These things are being done.

The results are reasonably satisfactory. More graduates are entering the teaching profession. In 1961 the number entering the colleges was 901. Last session it was 1,182, and in the school session beginning October this year we expect it to be 1,400. By 1970 this figure will, we reckon, have gone up to 1,700. We are getting a fair share of the graduates. It is not the question of cost to them of training within the first year that is the stumbling block. The question of image is one which must be faced by the local authorities. It is being faced by the colleges and something is being done to try to improve it.

As to the Roberts Report, someone suggested to me that Glasgow's position was not the worst. Some quotation on this was attributed to me. As it was said at a private meeting, I do not know how quotations can be in order. I remember somebody asking whether the shortage of teachers was a Glasgow problem. My answer was, "No", because I could cite schools in Ayrshire and elsewhere where, bearing in mind that practically all the staff were uncertificated, there was as great a shortage as in any school in Glasgow. The concentration of shortage in Glasgow, and in particular parts of Glasgow, is, however, a serious problem. I spoke to Glasgow about this. I sincerely hope that without direction we can get a proper appreciation of what can be done by a proper distribution within Glasgow itself.

When it comes to the Roberts Report, hon. Members opposite seem to think that this is an easy matter. They should know, however, that two attempts were made for this by the previous Secretary of State in 1963 but failed and were turned down by teachers because the teachers did not want discrimination. They do not want Glasgow to be treated alone in such a way as to rob Renfrew, Paisley and Lanarkshire, to drag in teachers to Glasgow and create greater shortages elsewhere. That is why the position is much more difficult than hon. Members opposite would have us believe. We might be able to work out something that could be acceptable, but it will not be easy. I have not turned it down, and I am prepared still further to look into the matter.

I was asked about travelling expenses and whether the approval of the Secretary of State was required. The answer is, "No". I was asked whether expenditure in travelling expenses would be covered by grant. It is, of course, relevant to the calculation of rate support grant.

It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings thereon lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of Government business).