§ 5. Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools in each of the past five years.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAs the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Mr. MontgomeryCan my hon. Friend confirm that the figures show an improving trend, particularly in the primary sector? If so, does not this show up the hypocrisy of the Labour Party, which launched a recent attack on the Government on this issue?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI am glad to say that my hon. Friend is right and that the figures show a steady improvement. The position concerning primary class sizes is improving faster than that concerning secondary class sizes. As the figures in the report show, the ratios for 1969–70 are much higher than those for 1971–72. The earlier figures are based on teaching staff and later ones are based on qualified 1386 teachers only, so that the figures understate the true improvement.
§ Mr. CarterIs the Minister aware that, as a result of his right hon. Friend's refusal to implement the Birmingham Local Education Authority's proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city, many schools will have a full complement of staff this coming year, though an insufficient number of pupils, because parents refuse to allow their children to travel from one side of the city to the other to attend an appropriate school? Can he tell the House on what criteria the education system in Birmingham has been so disrupted?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasAny disruption of the Birmingham education system is not due to my right hon. Friend's decisions. She has based her decisions on educational considerations, local needs and wishes and, above all, on the needs of the children concerned.
§ Mr. Sydney ChapmanIs my hon. Friend aware that, even if my right hon. Friend had accepted the radical proposals for secondary reorganisation in Birmingham, it was pointed out to the Birmingham education authority on repeated occasions that it would not be practicable to implement those proposals this September? Therefore, any blame to be attached must fall squarely on the shoulders of the chairman of the local' education authority.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasThat is an interesting point, but it does not arise directly from the Question.
§ Mr. HattersleySince the Secretary of State took her Birmingham decision with such objectivity, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament about her decision before she told either the Catholic Church or the local education authority?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasMy right hon. Friend took the proper steps to inform all interested parties.
§ Mr. HattersleySince the right hon. Lady claims such objectivity in these matters, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament before she notified either the Catholic Church or the LEA of her decision?
§ Mr. St. John-StevasI did not realise that the hon. Gentleman's hearing was 1387 defective. I made it clear that my right hon. Friend took entirely proper steps to inform all interested parties.
§ Following are the details:
| Maintained Schools | |||
| January | Primary | Secondary | All |
| 1969 | 27.7 | 17.9 | 22.9 |
| 1970 | 27.4 | 17.8 | 22.7 |
| 1971 | 26.9 | 17.9 | 22.6 |
| 1972 | 26.1 | 17.6 | 22.0 |
| 1973 (provisional) | 25.5 | 17.2 | 21.4 |