§ Q1. Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science on education policies delivered to the National Union of Teachers on Tuesday, 8th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Q12. Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for Education and Science on education policies to the National Union of Teachers at Douglas on 8th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)As I have already said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 1st May, "Yes, Sir".—[Vol. 782, c. 274.]
§ Mr. KingWhen the Secretary of State describes the expression of quite moderate opinion by eminent thinkers such as Kingsley Amis and the Warden of All Souls' as the "blackest day in education for 100 years", does not this sound a little unbalanced? Does the Prime Minister think that intellectual argument is assisted by Ministerial hysterics of that kind?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat the hon. Gentleman regards as a moderate statement and what the rest of us regard as moderate are not exactly the same. The paper which was castigated by my right hon. Friend is a document calling into question all the advances in education policy—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is on an educational topic.
§ The Prime Minister—carried through right hon. Friend with the support Front Bench opposite, and if the 260 hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) does not agree with those advances the fault obviously lies in him.
§ Mr. PriceIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Opposition are so split and squabbling—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Back to education, please.
§ Mr. PriceIs my right hon. Friend aware that the split in the Opposition is so serious on this issue that it would be a disaster if they were ever to have responsibility for education again? Is he further aware that so far from these being moderate opinions in the "black paper", they would undo all the solid progress made in education since the war?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree. I think that perhaps the reason why the Opposition have not had one or two little local problems such as we have had in the last few days is that they are a one-man band—and he sits on the back benches giving his orders to the Front Bench. I am not clear, in relation to education policy, whether the Front Bench opposite agree with this so called "black paper". If they do, they could take an early Supply Day, give us their views, set them against ours and let us have a confrontation on it.
§ Mr. LongdenWhy does the Prime Minister describe these as advances in education when every reasonable and balanced person, whether or not they agree with them, knows that they are experiments in education, which have yet to be proved?
§ The Prime MinisterBecause I totally reject, as my right hon. Friend did in the speech which is the subject of this Question, the attitudes and arguments used in in this so-called "black paper" about the whole liberal progress in education, carried forward for over 20 years now. Incidentally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made their contributions to this. I reject totally the reactionary character of this paper which appears to be supported by some back benchers opposite. Whether it is supported by the Front Bench opposite, I suppose we shall never know.
§ Mr. Simon MahonIs my right hon. Friend aware that speeches of his right hon. Friend in another context in recent days, namely, those relating to voluntary schools and religious education in schools, have been much appreciated in many parts of the country? May we take it from the Prime Minister that this is to be the continuing policy of the Government?
§ The Prime MinisterAs my right hon. Friend has made clear, there is to be no change in the policy, either as regards the present position, which has been agreed by all parties, of voluntary schools or about the position of religious education in the school system as a whole.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister once declared in a famous phrase on a great occasion that the grammar schools would be abolished over his dead body. Does he realise, amidst his "little local difficulties", that it is the Secretary of State for Education and Science who holds the assassin's dagger?
§ The Prime MinisterIf there was one thing which was predictable it was that we would get that supplementary question and the right hon. Gentleman has been anticipated by 36 of his brighter back benchers in putting it on the Order Paper. The answer is that, at the time I said that what we shall do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman is talking about what I said in 1963. I said that what we shall do is to extend—[Interruption.]—grammar school education—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Hon Gentlemen must listen to each other.
§ The Prime MinisterAt that time I said what we shall do is to extend grammar school education to everyone, through the comprehensive system. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman's policy is to maintain 11-plus selection, let him get up and say so.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs my right hon. Friend aware that when I listen to the other side I wonder what is the use of education?
§ The Prime MinisterMy right hon. Friend is entitled to wonder. What we are concerned to do is to get a system of education for everyone, not on the basis of future Cabinets half of whom went to one single school.
§ Mr. SpeakerNoise wastes valuable Question time.
§ Mr. KingOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's wriggle, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.