HC Deb 18 December 1975 vol 902 cc1892-911

3.47 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain (Dunbartonshire, East)

It is with some misgivings that I rise at this late hour to speak yet again on the problems of Scottish education. I have been a Member of this House for 14 months, yet only 13 months ago I rose at virtually the same hour to discuss the problems of Scottish education. It is a matter of concern that we must wait until virtually four o'clock in the morning before being able to raise these important matters.

I pay tribute to the Minister, so early in his career as Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for education in Scotland, for staying to listen to my pleas on behalf of the educational system in Scotland.

I raise this matter basically because I feel that there is a failure in Vote 2, Class X, to recognise the importance of education in Scotland. In this context I should like to quote my basic philosophy, which is echoed in E. F. Schumacker's book "Small is Beautiful" in terms of education. He states: All history—as well as all current experience—points to the fact that it is man, not nature, who provides the primary resource: that the key factor of all economic development comes out of the mind of man. Suddenly, there is an outburst of daring, initiative, invention, constructive activity, not in one field alone, but in many fields all at once. No one may be able to say where it came from in the first place; but we can see how it maintains and even strengthens itself: through various kinds of schools, in other words, through education. In a very real sense, therefore, we can say that education is the most vital of all resources. I trust that the Minister will recognise my sincerity when I say that education is a more vital resource to Scotland than oil. The real primary resource of any nation is its people, their skills, their training, and the application of their ideas. The true investment in the future is investment in the education of our children.

I recognise that in this Vote money is not the full answer to our educational problems, but it is important. Expenditure on Scottish or United Kingdom education as a proportion of NP in 1974 was 6.6 per cent., which compares favourably with other countries. But whereas the proportion spent on education in other countries this year will take into account increased costs, inflation, and so on, the figure for 1975–6 in Scotland will be static.

I draw atention to the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is present for this debate. I should like him to bear in mind a speech made by his previous Leader, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who, in the Scotsman of 15th December, is reported as having said: Our primary task must be to tailor our educational policy for the 94 per cent. of children who have no choice and will never have any choice but to go to state schools, and it is there that we should channel our efforts and energies towards raising the standards of education. In that context the Government do not appear to be taking into consideration the real needs of the community. If we intend to improve education and our society—and I speak as a Member for the Strathclyde Region—how are we going to tackle the real needs of the area, which lacks in social expenditure and is well known for its deprivation.

In the Scotsman on 16th September the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Strathclyde Region had the gravest teacher shortage of any local authority in the United Kingdom and that the present serious accommodation problem could become disastrous in five years unless there was a substantial increase in capital expenditure on school buildings. That was in the document prepared for the Strathclyde Region, which makes it clear that in Strathclyde the biggest single problem is a shortage of 1,425 teachers. This figure is based on national standards. The region needs to exceed those standards, particularly in deprived areas, if there is to be a significant improvement in the quality of the educational service.

I recognise that since 16th September there has been an improvement. Councillor Harley, the convenor of the Strathclyde Education Committee, recognised that and in the Scottish Educational Journal on 21st November he said that he saw the region's primary schools being staffed to national standards within the next recruiting year and that within two years there would be a full complement in the secondary sector, although there might be specialist shortages. The Journal article said: Councillor Harley told reporters that there were still considerable problems of staff distribution, but, as the authority's policy of not recruiting beyond Red Book standards worked its way through, it would achieve a better spread of the teaching force being recruited. It went on: The current figures showed that, in primary education, the region had pretty well reached the right level, although there were still areas of under-staffing and over-staffing. The secondary staff shortage of 1,025 had been reduced to 600. Does the Under Secretary of State think that the Red Book standards are adequate to cater for the needs of schoolchildren? In my constituency the application of these standards has meant severe shortages in specialist subjects. This causes problems for both parents and teachers.

Mr. John Pollock, General Secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said: Despite all our existing problems in education, we have the most highly qualified teaching profession in the world. That profession has the ability to once again raise Scottish teaching standards to their former pre-eminence in world education. I am disappointed that in Scotland, where we had a very good reputation for high educational standards, we have been reduced to this level, I emphasise the Strathclyde dimension because it is an area of social and educational deprivation. I pay tribute to the Minister because he has shown sympathy towards the region's problem.

A Department of Environment report showed that 97.5 per cent. of the areas of worst multiple deprivation were in the Strathclyde Region—115 out of 121. We must surely be deeply concerned if we want to improve the standards for our children, and despite what Councillor Harley and his colleagues have said, we are still very short of teachers. I recognise that the pupil/teacher ratio is not too bad in the Strathclyde Region, but many schools have shortages in certain specialities. The Houghton Report may have made teaching more attractive, but there is still a shortage of the right calibre and number required. Jordanhill College of Education this year found its intake of graduates down by 21 per cent. This shortage is worse in the urban areas. Glasgow currently still needs 130 primary school teachers and 190 secondary school teachers.

I am not alone in feeling as I do about the problems of Scottish education or about the Strathclyde Region. The Scottish Educational Journal of 28th November quotes Councillor Foulkes, of the Lothian Region, as referring to a conference of groups united against cuts in educational expenditure: He warned that, if the Government insisted on cuts, the authorities would have to consider charges for nursery schools, substantially higher fees for further education and severe curtailment of spending on books and paper at a time when costs were soaring. Even then, the authorities would not achieve the savings being suggested. This, from a member of the Minister's own party.

This is very depressing. The Labour Party, while it seems to be concerned about working-class people and their children, has done little to ensure that working-class children can take advantage of the benefits of education. A recent survey by Strathclyde University showed that in 1972 the middle class were sending 71.8 per cent. of students to university, while in 1962 the figure was only 66.1 per cent. This shows that cuts in educational expenditure are affecting the working class most severely.

Beyond this there is the problem of adult education. I find it depressing that something as imaginative as Ken Alexander's report should have been so badly treated by the Government. There is little hope that the educational budget envisaged in this Vote will help the SED to implement its major recommendations. In its policy statement of this month, the Educational Institute of Scotland says: It is all the more depressing therefore to read in the circular in which the Secretary of State commended the report to education authorities and other bodies that 'current financial constraints will affect the rate at which the expansion of adult education proposed in the report can be implemented and authorities and other interests are therefore asked to consider particularly those recommendations which would not require additional expenditure'. The Institute hopes the Government will seize the earliest opportunity to give the implementation of the report its unstinted support … The report rightly singles out for prior attention the needs of individuals and groups with special problems, among them young mothers, the elderly, those working unsocial hours, immigrants, rural and isolated communities, and the disadvantaged, including the illiterate or semi-illiterate, the handicapped and the inmates of penal establishments. The inadequacy of existing provision is most starkly exemplified in the fact that the penal system which is supposed to have a rehabilitative function, has only five trained full-time teachers, that most of what teaching is provided in prisons, and there appears to be precious little, is done by unqualified prison officers and that any progress they achieve with a prisoner is quiclky dissipated on his release because there is no follow-up. This is a shameful and intolerable sitution. That is a shameful and intolerable situation.

Turning to part-time education, the Under-Secretary last week attacked the Scottish National Party for putting forward the figure of 40,000 children on part-time education. I recognise that the official figure—the Government statistic—is 23,000, but, as an ex-teacher, I remind the Under-Secretary that many children in our schools are simply the subjects of child minding by teachers. Only recently I was myself minding classes in schools because there was no teacher available who was qualified in their subject. This is hidden part-time education, which is unacceptable to the vast majority of teachers and to the parents who genuinely want their children to be given an opportunity.

3.59 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) not only on raising this subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss education, but also on making such an extremely good speech at four o'clock in the morning. She has certainly raised a number of important points. I hope that the Minister will also be able to answer some detailed points that I want to raise.

It must be unpleasant for the Minister to be dealing with Estimates such as those now before us. The Vote on Account makes it clear that we are a long way from the glorious Conservative days, when we could look to each successive year for a further step in educational progress, considering which aspects should be given priority. Unfortunately, we must now think in terms of limited progress, made possible by cuts in other areas. There have been major cuts in capital expenditure, with local authorities being forced to cut back on the revenue side because of the Government's proposals on the rate support grant.

The hon. Lady referred to the problem of teacher supply. She quite rightly described the position of Strathclyde as acutely serious. Will the Minister say something about the teacher situation generally? There is an acute problem in some parts of the West of Scotland, with a lot of part-time education—about 20,000 children were affected at the last count—while in other areas it seems that the position is far from difficult.

The Secretary of State for Education gave a most revealing answer in the House, which showed that in England and Wales 3,911 teachers would be registered as unemployed in September. The indication was that the situation was likely to get worse, and there are plans south of the border, I understand, to cut recruitment to the teacher training colleges. In view of the remarkable upsurge in teacher recruitment, and also the fact that local authorities are being advised, in circulars from the Scottish Office, to cut back on teacher recruitment where the appropriate pupil/teacher ratio has been reached, is there any danger of the position in England and Wales spreading to Scotland? In other words, could 1976 be the first year for many years in which a substantial number of Scottish teachers are registered as unemployed?

It would be monstrous if teachers were unemployed in the East while a substantial number of children were on part-time education in the West. Successive Governments have sought to solve the problem of part-time education and shortages of teachers in particular areas by giving help with housing and removal expenses and by additional payments under the designated school system. Can progress now be made on a substantial payment for designated schools, whereby teachers are attracted to the areas of particular shortage? This idea has been under consideration for a long time. It must be a challenge to the Minister that he faces the prospect of a surplus of teachers in some parts of Scotland while there are shortages in other parts.

Mrs. Bain

Part of the problem in attracting teachers to these areas is the cut-back in the building programme, so that instead of £60 million being spent on building new schools the figure is now reduced to £39 million.

Mr. Taylor

There is no doubt that the cut-back in the capital building programme has contributed substantially to our problems. In some areas of the West of Scotland, certainly in my area, there is an acute teacher shortage in well-built new schools. The problem has been exacerbated by the Government's £6 limit on pay rises.

The hon. Lady referred to nursery schools. The last Conservative Government made dramatic advances in nursery education. Can the Minister say when day nursery education in Scotland will be available for those who want it? We accept that the age of nursery education is an age of real development for children. It is certainly good for them to go to nursery school. It is also good for the many young mothers who find it difficult to cope these days, particularly in some of the perimeter housing areas.

My fear is that because of the savage cut-backs in educational spending and growth which have been imposed by the Government we shall have a situation in which local authorities will be obliged to cut back on nursery education. This would be tragic, and I hope the Minister will use all his resources to ensure that that does not happen.

I shall certainly convey the hon. Lady's kind remarks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). However, I want to refer briefly to the grant-aided schools, which are very important. It is frightful that the problem of finance in Scottish education will be made more and not less difficult because of the Government's appalling policy of cutting back the grant-aided schools. The Minister admitted at Question Time recently that more pupils will be forced into the State sector of education simply because the fees in the grant-aided sector are being forced up year by year by the Government's policy.

The Minister said that in the Edinburgh area about 250 pupils would be forced to transfer, whereas the estimate that we received from our friends in Edinburgh is that that figure would be considerably more. Whether it is 200, 300, 400 or 500, the fact remains that a great deal of educational disruption and hardship is being caused, and the Government's policy is creating an unfortunate situation in which freedom of choice in education is available only to a small minority on high incomes or to those parents who are prepared to make in some cases what are quite unreasonable sacrifices.

This is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to speak at length on the remarkable decision about the Mary Erskine School. Together with English grant-aided schools, Scottish schools were offered the opportunity of going either public or private. They were given the chance of becoming independent schools or of being integrated into the State system. In Edinburgh a substantial number of schools are run by the Merchant Company. It was decided that one of its schools should be integrated into the local authority network and that the money raised from the sale of that building should be used to limit the fees in the remaining grant-aided schools or to offer more scholarships. Apart from two other schools, which were virtually State schools anyway, this was the only school that took up the option of being absorbed into the public sector.

When the Conservative-controlled Edinburgh local authority, which was glad that the decision had been made, decided to integrate the school into its school system, the Minister unfortunately refused to approve the borrowing consent whereby the Lothian Regional Council could buy over the Mary Erskine School. This shocked the local authority. Councillor Foulkes, who is, I understand, the convenor of the Lothian Regional Council, condemned the Government in spite of the fact that he is a member of the Labour Party. The people of Edinburgh, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Scottish National Party condemned the Government. When the Minister finds himself in a minority of one, it is high time that he looks at his position and considered whether he has made a mistake. If the offer of a choice for the grant-aided schools proves to be an empty one, not only are the Government's policies wrong but they are also bogus.

Mrs. Bain

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this problem, great though it is, is small when compared to the situation in Glasgow in October 1974 when there were 682 mobile classrooms?

Mr. Taylor

I do not believe that any educational problem is small if it affects one child's education. I certainly agree that the problem of mobile classrooms is great. However, if a youngster has to have his or her education in the second or third year because of the Government's policy, over which we have no direct control, that is a human problem, as indeed are all problems of education. I therefore hope that the Minister will try to justify, or change, his monstrous attitude in this regard.

My second last question is to inquire whether the Minister will say something about the remarkable institution called the Scottish Examination Board. He will know that this is the body that controls our leaving certificate examinations and produces reports from time to time which contain interesting global figures. Because of the changes in the pattern of Scottish education, and because of the Government's policy of trying to insist on universal comprehensive education, I thought that it would be interesting to look at the report to see if there had been any change in the pattern of results, comparing the results as between different areas and as between comprehensive schools, independent schools and grant-aided schools. The reports of the Board do not give separate figures.

I therefore took the liberty of writing to the Board, which very courteously replied to the effect that unfortunately the information was not available in the form in which I was seeking it. Some time ago I wrote to the Minister seeking his help in this regard. I am awaiting the information, if it is available.

I am surprised, not at the delay in the Minister's replying, because he takes great trouble to ensure that the most complete and authoritative of replies are given, but that the information was not readily available and that apparently the officials of the Scottish Education Department had not sought this information from the Examination Board. If one of the officials of the Department had sought the information from the Board, I am sure that the Board would have been able to give me the information when I asked for it. It is astonishing that, at a time of major change in the whole pattern of education in Scotland, no attempt should apparently, have been made to discover whether the comprehensive system, the grant-aided schools or the independent schools were achieving the better results. It is important for the Minister to use the Examination Board, not just as a means of disseminating examination papers and correcting them and publishing global statistics, but as a means of securing information which can be used to assess the value of the changes.

Taking up the hon. Lady's mention of the book "Small is Beautiful", it would be interesting to know whether the smaller schools have greater success than the larger schools, whether a school with 1,500 pupils has a very bad record in comparison with schools with 1,000 or 500 pupils. I am always astonished by the amount of information the Minister can provide in letters. But apparently the one piece of information which it is extremely important to know apparently is not available.

I accept, as I am sure that the Minister will, that examination results are not the be all and end all in education, but they are important and, as long as we have leaving certificate examinations—I do not think that there is yet any proposal by the Government to abolish them—it is important to be able to find whether the results of different sectors bear comparison.

Finally, will the Minister say something about a rather astonishing paragraph in the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy"—Cmnd. 6348, which was published in November? The White Paper says that the Government are contemplating the establishment of a Scottish Assembly and that responsibility for education will rest by and large with the Assembly, if it is set up. Paragraph 126 says: The Scottish administration … will control the schools system in Scotland, and will be able if they wish to determine (for example) its standards and structure, its curricula, its attendance requirements such as age levels, and policy for private schools and nursery education. The Minister must have been involved in these discussions. I wonder how much scope the Assembly would have if it took over responsibility for education from this House. My understanding is that even if the £70 million about which we were talking was transferred to the Assembly under the block grant, the Assembly would have very little freedom. The only freedom that it would have is that if it spent a little more on education it would be able to decide whether to spend less on roads or libraries, or other services.

That kind of assessment is made not by the Government, but by local authorities. They decide their priorities and use their block grant as they see fit. The proposed Assembly will get a block grant in much the same way. That being so, what freedom will the Assembly have? According to the White Paper, all that it will do is to act as a clearing house for a block grant from the Treasury. The priorities will be decided not by the Assembly, but by the local authorities, just as they are now.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to answer those five questions and the points raised by the hon. Lady in her excellent speech which enabled me to raise some matters with the Minister.

4.16 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone)

I am grateful, as is the hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) for initiating this debate this morning. She raised the question of educational expenditure in Scotland, and although the field that she has chosen is very wide I should like to start by saying that in the current year, 1975–76, expenditure on the education service in Scotland—apart from universities, which are not within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend—was forecast in Cmnd. 5879 "Public Expenditure to 1978–79", published at the beginning of this year, to amount to about £435 million, of which sum local authority expenditure, both current and capital, amounted to about £375 million, the balance being accounted for in the main by expenditure on grant-aided schools and colleges, for example the colleges of education and by student awards.

The hon. Lady raised a number of issues, but before dealing with them in some detail it might be helpful if I were first to review the future pattern of public expenditure in the light of policy objectives and so far as it can at present be discerned.

Cmnd 5879, to which I have already referred, gave a forecast of expenditure up to the year 1978–79. The programmes for these years and for 1979–80 have been under review in the 1975 Public Expenditure Survey, the outcome of which will be announced in due course by means of the annual White Paper on public expenditure.

It has, however, been possible to take certain decisions in relation to the forthcoming programme year 1976–77. The hon. Lady may recall that in his Budget Statement on 15th April the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated that it would be necessary to make reductions in the planned level of public spending in that year as forecast in Cmnd 5879. This would be achieved by reducing current expenditure on goods and services by 1½ per cent. and capital expenditure by 10 per cent. These restrictions would not apply to certain essential services such as the basic needs school building programme, or to certain services where the level of expenditure was determined by level of demand, for example students awards and school meals.

Against that background, however, the annual negotiations were started with the local authorities about the level of relevant expenditure to be taken into account for all services for the purpose of determining the rate support grant for 1976–77.

As the hon. Lady and the House know, these negotiations have been completed and the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975 was laid before the House on 4th December, together with a Report—House of Commons Paper 17—of the underlying considerations leading to my right hon. Friend's decision on the level of relevant expenditure.

The Order was approved by the House on 15th December. In introducing it my right hon. Friend indicated that he had allowed a higher figure for local authority expenditure than had been planned following the Chancellor's announcement in April. The excess allowed was £26 million, of which some £8 million was accounted for by education. The reasons for the excess lay in the continuing commitments inherited from the old authorities, and in the effects of local government reorganisation.

So far as local authority current expenditure in 1976–77 is concerned, the situation is now known to the education authorities. The main features of the settlement were given in the Report. A central consideration was the need to provide adequate staffing of schools—a point that the hon. Lady made. As she knows, this is costly, given the high proportion of staff costs to total expenditure.

The hon. Lady should recognise that staff standards have steadily improved over the past few years and we are now in sight of achieving nationally the standards for primary schools and secondary schools that were recommended in Education Department Circular No. 819 of 1972 and the "Red Book" on secondary staffing, respectively. We discussed this matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities in June and reached an agreement with the Convention that in the years 1975–76 and 1976–77 authorities should aim to reach, but not to exceed, these staffing standards. This agreement was subsequently incorporated in a Scottish Office Finance Circular—No. 64 of 1975—issued in October and it was reflected in the provision for teachers in the amount of "relevant expenditure" for 1976–77.

The hon. Lady rightly placed great stress on staffing levels in Scottish schools, particularly in Strathclyde. Perhaps I may help her by repeating one or two figures that I gave at a Press conference. Some of the hon. Lady's figures were not quite accurate.

Taking the primary sector to begin with, in 1974 we had a surplus of 36 teachers. As at 1st September this year we had a surplus of 1,096 teachers in Scottish primary schools; that is excluding remedial and visiting teachers. In the secondary sector of Scottish schools we were short of 552 teachers as at 1st September last year. As at 1st September this year we had a surplus of 416 teachers.

However, there is a difficulty, as the hon. Lady rightly points out. We have some well-staffed areas. Some are staffed above the "Red Book" standards. But Strathclyde is still suffering from problems of secondary school staffing.

Mrs. Bain

I recognise that on paper we appear to have a substantial number of teachers. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be aiming at much smaller class sizes, which most teachers would find educationally more advantageous to children? Does he also agree that at the end of the day resources must come in not merely in terms of teachers but in increases in the amount of money available for per capita expenditure within the schools? That is increasingly important. Teachers are complaining bitterly that they cannot get the required jotters, books and equipment because prices are escalating so quickly within these sectors that one can put in a requisition for books at 50p each and by the time they arrive they cost 80p. This is causing great problems.

Mr. McElhone

The main question was about the pupil/teacher ratio. In primary and secondary schools that ratio is now the best that it has ever been. I hope that the Scottish National Party will recognise the efforts made in that particularly important aspect of education.

The hon. Lady specifically referred to the Strathclyde Region. In the primary sector last year Strathclyde was short of 400 primary school teachers. Now we have a surplus of 100 primary school teachers in that area. As we all know, the difficulty is one of trying to persuade teachers to come down from the Grampians and across from the Lothians into Strathclyde.

It is hard for mothers in Glasgow and other parts of Strathclyde to read the figures I gave at Monday's Press conference, showing that there is staffing above agreed standards in the Lothian and Grampian area, when their sons and daughters are on part-time education. I understand parents' feelings. I have been working hard with the Department—with the assistance of the Strathclyde Regional Education Authority, for which I am grateful—to tackle some of the problems in Glasgow. With the co-operation of Strathclyde we have been quite successful in certain schools. I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart will acknowledge that we have put some effort into his area, where a secondary school is suffering part-time education.

The difficulties of education planners in trying to estimate future needs for staff and school buildings over the next few years should be recognised. The number of pupils in the primary sector has dropped by 14,000 in the past three years, yet we have increased the number of teachers by 3,000. These are significant figures. The number of pupils in the primary sector is expected to be down by 87,000 in 1979, compared with 1972.

The hon. Lady rightly talked about how best to use resources. I must look ahead and ask "What is the best way to use resources when the birth rate in Scotland is dropping dramatically each year and numbers in the primary schools are dropping continually?" We want to improve standards, but we already have the best pupil/teacher ratio that we have ever had in Scottish schools.

Mrs. Bain

We must aim at smaller classes, which means more teachers. We should not be complacent about the situation. Many of us who have been in the teaching profession realise that the smaller the class size the better, from the point of view of giving a child the opportunity of a good education. We should not sit back and say that everything is looking all right.

Mr. McElhone

Nobody is saying that everything looks rosy. We shall not be satisfied until every child is in full-time education and we have class sizes that bring out the best in children. But the hon. Lady must give the Government some credit. We are in a difficult situation. We have increased the number of teachers in both the primary and secondary sectors by about 1,000. We have the best-ever teacher/pupil ratio in Scottish schools. The effort being made by the Department and local authorities must be recognised. It would be churlish of the hon. Lady not to recognise the supreme effort made by many people who are interested in Scottish education.

This year we have 164 primary teachers above the agreed standards in Dunbarton, an educational division within the Strathclyde Region. Those standards were agreed at a meeting between the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and my Department in June. We are 32 teachers short in the secondary sector in that area, but that is an improvement on last year, when the area was 46 short. The total number in Dumbarton is 1,538, so 32 is not a big percentage—but I take the point that the shortage is a cause of great concern, and we intend to do something about it.

It is also significant that current expenditure on non-teaching costs—the costs of staff other than teachers, and expenditure on maintenance, heating, lighting, rates, books, equipment and so on—has been rising substantially over the past two years, 1974–75 and 1975–76. In schools the improvement in unit costs per pupil has amounted to 13 per cent., and in further education the improvement per student has amounted to 5½ per cent. There is an indication of substantial percentage increases in improvements in the sectors of lighting, books and equipment, which are all important parts of the education structure. The hon. Lady must recognise that we are not satisfied, although those are real improvements.

I turn now to capital expenditure in 1976–77. We shall ensure, as the Chancellor indicated in his statement of 15th April, to which I have already referred, that provision will be made for essential school places. We must put that firmly on the record. There is no reduction in essential school places—namely, roofs over heads. They have not been cut by the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 15th April.

To help the authorities with the forward planning of capital programmes, we announced last February, along with the building starts for 1975–76, the provisional starts for 1976–77. The provisional start figures include the £30 million that has been approved for additional primary and secondary school places, which I recently announced. As basic needs are not affected it is clear that the bulk of the programme will be able to go ahead.

My right hon. Friend has not yet been able to make an announcement about special schools or improvements in that sector, but that information will be contained in the White Paper. There is a fair number of special school projects going ahead in Scotland, and I mention just three. There is the St. Giles School for the Partially Deaf in Edinburgh for which a tender of £898,000 has been approved. In the Grampian Region a tender of £877,000 has been accepted for the Cordyce School for Maladjusted Children. In Glasgow a tender of £429,000 has been accepted for the St. Keven's School for Mentally Handicapped Children. On a smaller scale, although still important, in the hon. lady's area of Dunbartonshire we have approved a new classroom at Elmwood School for Partially Deaf Children, at a cost of £15,479. A new audiology unit has been approved at Hamilton, at a cost of £114,000.

In spite of the severe financial constraints within which we are working, and in spite of the difficulties that the Government have had to face over the past two years, we have gone ahead with these important sectors of education and ensured improvements, especially in terms of special schools and schools for handicapped children. We have demonstrated our regard for the problems faced by those children. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that we are not complacent. We are trying to provide as much as we can for education, given the financial constraints within which the Government have to work.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart referred to nursery schools. I think that everyone will agree that that is an important sector of education. A programme of nursery schools has been authorised to the value of £6.9 million in the period of 12 months to 30th September 1976. This will provide 9,000 places and will be a substantial help to areas in Strathclyde which are in grievous need of facilities such as nursery schools and additional education projects.

For 1975–76 the programme for new starts amounts to £39.6 million. The amount of work that can be started by education authorities in the financial year 1975–76 will be considerably greater than that sum. That is because ground was lost as a result of a moratorium imposed by the previous Conservative Government on building starts in October-December 1973. As a result, the 1974–75 programme ran for the four quarters to 30th June 1975, so overlapping by one quarter the 1975–76 programme which started in April 1975. Thus, in the 1975–76 financial year it is open to authorities to start both parts of the 1974–75 programme and the whole of the 1975–76 programme. I apologise to the hon. Lady if those details seem slightly confusing. They indicate that extra building can take place because of the moratorium imposed by the previous Government.

Representations have been made by Glasgow Trades Council about Strathclyde being allocated only £13.3 million for school building in 1975–76 and £11 million for 1976–77 compared with the £33 million asked for.

The following points should be noted about the Strathclyde allocations. The sum of £13.3 million for 1975–76, which is a firm figure, is for primary and secondary schools only. In addition the region has £4 million for nursery schools and £1.5 million for special schools. The figure of £11 million for 1976–77 is provisional and we are awaiting the outcome of the White Paper, publication of which is expected shortly.

On the side of building for further education, our aim will be to continue to cope with the demand stemming from the rising trend in numbers pursuing non-advanced vocational studies, both full-time and part-time. In the sphere of advanced full-time courses we shall also seek to continue to expand facilities.

I also wish to put on record some of the projects involving further education. In regard to the central institutions, Paisley College of Technology Phase III has just started at a cost of £1.4 million; Leith Nautical College was started early in 1974 at a cost of £4 million; a hostel at Robert Gordon's College of Technology has just started, at a cost of £300,000.

As for colleges of further education, Cumbernauld Technical College—which is in the hon. Lady's constituency—is on the point of completion, at a cost of £1 million; Clinterty Agricultural College has just been completed, at a cost of £500,000; Aberdeen Technical College extension was started in May 1975, at a cost of £2.2 million, despite financial restraints; and Dumfries Technical College extension was started at the end of last year, at a cost of £800,000.

I hope that the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will pay some regard to the fact that we are going through a period of severe financial restraint, but the Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland are pressing local authorities to maximise the use of existing resources to ensure that Scotland gets as much as it can within the financial constraints.

I hope that what we have put on record this morning is not a dismal picture. I agree that it is not an entirely happy situation, because we are never content. My aspirations lie in improving educational standards year by year. I remind the House that we have the best pupil/teacher ratio we have ever experienced in Scottish schools, we have 1,000 extra teachers in secondary and primary schools, and we are pursuing projects such as I have outlined in central institutions, colleges of further education and special schools. This is some indication that we are earnest in our endeavours to keep Scottish education to the forefront of the nation's affairs.

I thank the hon. Lady for initiating this debate. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart for being present at four o'clock in the morning to put various points to me. I should be failing in my duty if I did not comment on one or two of those points.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The hour is late, and I should be quite happy if the Minister would prefer to deal with those matters by correspondence.

Mr. McElhone

Perhaps I should put two matters on the record. I wish, first, to mention Scottish examination boards. I want to be as honest and open in this job as I possibly can. I could have given the figures for 1973, but I thought that that was not good enough. I thought that we should seek to give as much informations as possible to Back-Bench Members of Parliament, in whatever party they may be, because the better informed hon. Members are, the better able they will be to understand the difficulties with which the Government have to contend.

I investigated the situation and was told that the 1974 figures would not be published until the spring of 1976. Nevertheless, we took a decision that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart should have the figures in advance of publication. I think that that is a very generous attitude displayed by the Government to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

The Minister mentioned the 1974 figures. Is he referring to the session commencing in 1974 and to examinations set in 1975 or those set in 1974?

Mr. McElhone

I must be careful in references to where the examinations fall, and just how these figures are gathered, but I shall try to give the hon. Member the most up-to-date figures available. I hope to write to him very shortly, before the end of the year if possible, and I hope that he will be satisfied with the progress of comprehensive education in Scotland.

As the Prime Minister has said, the great debate on the Scottish Assembly has started. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and his hon. Friends will take part in the debate and help to ensure that the White Paper becomes a good Bill, which will satisfy the aspirations of the people of Scotland and ensure that the bogus claim that they want a separate Scotland will not be accepted.