HC Deb 30 June 1976 vol 914 cc417-61

'The probationary period of service of a teacher shall be recognised as completed whether undertaken in a maintained or non-maintained school provided that the school is recognised by the Department of Education and Science'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

In moving this new clause may I preface my remarks by saying a word about the apparent misunderstanding in the Press of the purpose of the Opposition in relation to this Bill? There seems to be some misunderstanding that our attitude to this Bill is in some way connected with the breakdown of communication in what are called "the usual channels", since that little local difficulty over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I emphasise now that this has nothing to do with the matter, because whether communications are resumed or interrupted, sub rosa, sub subgreto or in secreto, we are opposed in principle to the Bill and we shall endeavour as far as we can in this Report stage to take out some of its worst features and improve it as much as we can.

We are opposed to the principle of compulsion that is enshrined in this entire Bill. It is very odd that the Liberal Party should espouse it, because we always thought that liberty had something to do with the Liberal Party. Clearly it does not. We would have been more surprised had we not seen the recent paradox of a party which is dedicated, as it says, to raising the tone of public discussion carrying on its contest for the leadership in a very curious way. It seems an odd way of achieving that aim.

We shall endeavour to improve the Bill in a constructive way. We have already had debates on the two major themes of Conservative education policy—standards and the influence of parents. This new clause has to do with the choice of school. Of course, the choice of school can never be absolute, but, because it is impossible to have an absolute, it is not a good reason for doing away with the degree of choice available, and it is not a good reason for ceasing to try at every available opportunity to extend the choice that is there.

If there is to be a choice of school for parents, one of the essential requirements to establish is that there should be freedom of movement between the maintained and the independent sectors. There should not be artificial barriers at any level—at the teacher level, at the pupil level, or at the administrative level—if they can be done away with.

That is why we are proposing in this succinct but important clause that the probationary period of service of a teacher shall be recognised as completed whether it is undertaken in a maintained or a non-maintained school, provided that school is recognised by the Department of Education and Science.

At the basis of this amendment there is an important principle, which is enshrined in the 1944 settlement. It is a fundamental principle, contained in Section 8 of the 1944 Act, which says: It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure that there shall be available for their area sufficient schools—

  1. (a) for providing primary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of junior pupils; and
  2. (b) for providing secondary education, that is to say, full-time education suitable to the requirements of senior pupils, other than such full-time education as may be provided for senior pupils in pursuance of a scheme made under the provisions of this Act relating to further education".
In that section, we see that the duty placed upon local education authorities is not to provide schools themselves. That is not the basis of the Act. It is to secure that there are sufficient schools available. From the point of view of this basic section of the Act, it matters not whether those schools are provided in the maintained sector or outside it, so long as the schools are available.

4.45 p.m.

This principle is followed through in various sections of the Act, which give the local authorities power to pay fees at non-maintained schools, thus again showing that the intentions of the framers of the Act were to see that there should be places available for children whatever their provenance. Section 81 of the Act gives that power for local education authorities and Section 100 for the Secretary of State. Later, in the 1953 Act, the duty to pay fees in certain cases was added to the power to do so.

Thus we see that the policy of the Act is quite the opposite of the policy now being pursued by the present Administration. It is odd that a Government who are so strongly against the doctrine of apartheid in race relations—and quite rightly so—should espouse that same doctrine in education and seek to establish an unbridgeable gulf between the maintained and the independent sectors. Why else were the direct grant schools destroyed? They were destroyed because they were bridges between those two sectors.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)


Mr. St. John-Stevas

That was the reason why they were destroyed. They were destroyed so that the independent schools would be left in isolation, and no doubt in due course they will fall victim to the Government's axe. "Divide and rule" has been the motto of tyrants throughout the ages, and this is the policy that has been followed in education.

The policy of the Opposition is quite different. We want to establish as many links as possible between the independent schools and the maintained sector, and we want to preserve as many hybrid schools as possible, because we do not wish to see the different sections of the education service isolated one from another.

It was for that reason that Lord Boyle, whose name is so often upon the lips of Government supporters—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wish to interrupt me? I was not worrying particularly—

Mr. Clement Freud (Isle of Ely)

Get on with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Order. The House must observe the common courtesies. It is very difficult if interruptions occur when an hon. Member is on his feet.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely commenting on the hon. Gentleman's accent. His pronunciation of the word "often" as "orften" is very much middle or upper class, and some of us find it very difficult to follow him.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. St. John-Stevas rose

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

There was no point of order.

Mr. Christopher Price

Then, on a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been finding it difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman because he speaks at the rate of about 1 m.p.h. Will you encourage him to go a little faster?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I appeal to the House. Let us have a little courtesy from both sides.

Mr. Freud

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not difficult for you to condone gratuitous and shoddy insults from the Minister and then, when we ask him to speed up his interminable and boring speech, say that it is considered discourteous?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

An hon. Member is fully entitled, as long as he is within the rules of order, to develop his argument as he so wishes.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Perhaps somebody could inform the Liberal education spokesman that there has been a change of Government, and that I am no longer Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.

As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walton, I fail to see that there is any moral difference between broadening one's o's and dropping one's h's. I really think we must put up with each other's idiosyncrasies, in pronunciation and in other ways. I certainly do not in any way reproach the former Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for coming here improperly dressed. I wonder whether he was sacked by the Prime Minister for that reason. I note that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is putting on his tie. Things are improving! Where, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will it all end?

I return to my text. Inadequate though it may be, it seems to have been superior to the various diversions that have been provided.

Mr. Heffer

It is a bit "orf"-putting!

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The House has had its fun. Let us be serious now.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I had thought of an answer to that remark from the hon. Member for Walton, but I resisted the temptation to make it.

The important point here is that local education authorities had this right to take up places in the independent sector. Of course, there are limitations to this. The district auditor, for example, has a perfect right to inquire into the matter, as he has a right to inqure into any item that appears in the accounts of a local education authority. But it is lawful—this is the point that should have been made clear by the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State and her Ministry—for any local education authority, such as Bromley—I must be careful about my pronunciation here—to provide places and to provide the fees for those places in the independent sector if it wishes as an altenative.

Under Section 9 of the Education Act 1944, local education authorities have always been entitled to assist schools that are not maintained in accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State. If the hon. Lady had been straightforward about that and made that clear, she would have been much better occupied than in making the rather unfortunate comments that she passed on the letter she received from an hon. Friend of mine. They attracted attention in no less a journal than the Daily Express, where she counselled neutrality on such matters as the preservation of the Monarchy and the constitution.

It has been argued that the 1953 Act impliedly prohibits local education authorities from providing free places, except where there is a shortage of places at maintained schools. This is the weapon that has been used to try to blow up that particular bridge between the maintained and independent sectors. But I am advised that the powers in the 1953 Act are not in derogation of but in addition to the powers in the 1944 Act. The exercise of any power under the Education Acts could become illegal if it were totally unreasonably exercised.

Mr. Arnold Shaw (Ilford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking to the right brief? There has been no mention by him so far of the clause before the House, namely, New Clause 8, which deals with the probationary period of service of teachers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his arguments in his own way.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has the right to develop his argument as he chooses, but if we are to go through the whole list of potential and actual bridges between the independent sector and the maintained sector and to arrive at the probationary period of teaching only finally, we shall have covered the whole purview of the education service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

That is hardly a point of order, with respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Lady has made an exciting suggestion. I am tempted to follow her advice, but I think that I have quoted sufficiently from the Education Acts to establish my point. It is an important one—namely, that the basic principle of the system is to link the independent and the maintained sectors. It is in that general setting of principle that the clause is being moved.

It is not, as the hon. Lady appears to think, some kind of revolution. It is a Conservative proposal building on a foundation that is already there. I hope that the hon. Lady will try to cast out from her mind the prejudices that, unfortunately, exist against the independent sector. She and others on the Government side seem to regard the independent sector as some kind of evil.

I am sure that the hon. Lady has a bright and brilliant career ahead of her, but we warn her to avoid the fate that overtook the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He suggested that it should be made a criminal offence to send a child to a private school, thus indulging his prejudices to the full. As a result of that statement, the former Prime Minister decided that the right hon. Gentleman was unsuitable to become Secretary of State for Education and Science. We therefore see on the Government Front Bench the residuary beneficiary of that decision.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley)

If I might put the record straight, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was the next but one.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

There were two residuary beneficiaries. The right hon. Gentleman was the second.

At present, a teacher who has completed a training course at a college of education has to complete a probationary year of teaching in a school if he is to enjoy the status of qualification. It is only after the first year of full-time teaching is completed and accepted as being of sufficient standard that the teacher is considered as being fully qualified.

The anomaly of the present situation is that such a qualifying probationary year can be served only in a maintained school. If the trainee-teacher leaves college and goes straight to an independent school—no matter how good that school might be, and no matter how good that teacher might be—that teacher is not regarded as fully qualified. This can have salary and career prospect repercussions later.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

Will my hon. Friend say how that comes about? Is it by virtue of regulations made under the 1944 Act? If not, in what other manner does it come about?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

It is done under regulations exercised under the 1944 Act, but it would be possible to reverse that policy. I would be delighted, if the Minister was willing to make a declaration to that effect, to withdraw the clause and to make progress immediately to the next new clause. I think that she is considering the matter.

The shortcomings of this situation were highlighted when the direct grant schools were abolished by the Government. Some of the teachers in those schools went into the maintained sector. Many of them were teachers of long standing, yet they had never completed a probationary year in a maintained school. It is true that the Secretary of State waived the requirement in the case of a number of teachers, and accepted a number of years' teaching in a direct grant school as being the equivalent for probationary purposes of one year in a maintained school.

However, the new teachers in direct grant schools were not so fortunate. They are one group of people who have been put into difficulties by Government policies on this matter. Not only existing teachers are affected by the rule of not recognising service in non-maintained schools. Teachers coming from the colleges of education are finding it extremely hard to get a job at the moment. We are faced with the real possibility that by the autumn perhaps as many as 15,000 teachers who have been trained for their jobs will be unable to find work. Responsibility for that rests with the Government, who have continually changed their policies on the number of teachers who are to be employed within the maintained system, and who have been cutting down their estimates continually since the Conservative White Paper of 1972.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)

How many teachers would be unemployed if the Government were to invoke the public expenditure cuts demanded by the Opposition?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

The Opposition have never asked for cuts in the education service—

Mr. Heffer

They have never said where they want cuts.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

—so it would not affect the issue one way or the other. Would it make Labour Members happier if the Opposition were demanding cuts in the education service?

Miss Margaret Jackson

May we take it from the hon. Gentleman's comments that he is giving us an assurance, after all our difficulties of the past few months in seeking to discover where the public expenditure cuts proposed by the Conservatives would fall, that they will not fall on education and that no further cuts in education would be proposed?

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am here not to prophesy, but to deal with the facts. I have been asked whether our policy would result in more teachers being unemployed. I say that we have never demanded cuts in education. With the activities of the present Secretary of State that is hardly a virtue because it has been unnecessary to make such a demand. But this is an important point to note. Although there certainly have been demands for cuts in public expenditure, and there have been specific proposals in other spheres, there have been no demands for cuts in education.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Our debate is being closely watched by the whole education profession. One of the important things that teachers want to know is what public expenditure cuts the Opposition would make in the education service. At a time like this they are unwilling to be fobbed off with a statement to the effect that the Conservatives do not need to state their policy on that. It is vitally important that it is stated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair must intervene here. We must leave this aspect of the subject and return to the new clause.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We shall leave the facts as they are. The Opposition have never demanded cuts in the education service, and the Government have made record cuts in that service.

Mr. Flannery

The hon. Gentleman has run away from the question.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

I have run away from nothing. I have made the point clear. I am following a ruling of the Chair, and it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would do the same and not make interruptions from a sedentary position.

The clause would somewhat ease the position of some of the student teachers who will be unemployed because of Government policy. It would enable them to serve their probationary year in any recognised school, not just in a maintained school. It is important to note the limited effect of the clause. It does not say that the probationary period can be served in any school. It must be served in a maintained school or a non-maintained school, in which case the school must be recognised by the Department.

There is a process of registration by which every independent school must register, but the act of registration carries no approval from the Department. But if the process is put into operation the school is recognised as efficient. That is the equivalent of the Department recognising that in those schools the standard of education is accepted by the Secretary of State as satisfactory. A safeguard for standards is therefore built into the clause. There can therefore be no question of a teacher being able to serve his probation in a school which is in some way inferior, because it is only in those schools which have been recognised by the Department as reaching certain basic standards that the clause would apply.

I hope that the Minister will be her normal reasonable self and will either give some undertaking that this proposal will be considered further—because the matter was considered seriously when I was a Minister in her Department—or, if she cannot do that, will give some indication of the Department's thinking on this point and say why there should not be this additional bridge between the two sectors.

I press upon the hon. Lady the need to alleviate unemployment among student teachers. We know that there are difficulties and that education must take its share of any cuts, but so far it has taken an unfair share. About 25 per cent. of the proposed cuts in expenditure fall on education services.

If that is the Government's policy, the least they should do is to try to improve matters where, within the parameters of that policy, they have some room to manoeuvre. If they accepted the new clause, they would be able, in a small way, to improve employment prospects in the education service and, more important, raise standards and create an atmosphere of co-operation between the independent and maintained sectors.

Whatever our ideological differences, teachers have in common the fact that they are at the service of children and parents and they should be facilitated in their work instead of being hindered.

Miss Margaret Jackson

As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) made plain in part of his speech, the existing position in statute and regulation is that the probationary period of service of a qualified teacher can be served only in a maintained school. However, there seems to have been a misunderstanding which has led the Opposition to put down a new clause which is, in essence, unnecessary. The Secretary of State already has power to reduce or waive the probationary period of individual teachers who have had service in non-maintained schools. This power is frequently used.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that when he was at my Department this matter was being examined. He will be pleased to know that there has been some action. In the circular issued in May last year, local authorities were told that they could assume that if they applied for probation to be waived for a teacher from an independent school whom they wished to employ in a maintained school, it would automatically be granted.

I am a little unhappy that the new clause should suggest that service in independent schools should automatically be counted against the probationary period. That assumes that such service would always be suitable and comparable and, perhaps more important, the new clause would remove from local authorities—who are the employers—their option to exercise a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the new clause since what it seeks to do is already possible and actually takes place.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that he believed that the new clause would ease employment prospects. I cannot see how that would be done. It is open to local authorities to employ teachers from training colleges, independent schools or wherever they choose. The difficulty is in teachers being able to get jobs and not whether their probationary period has been served in a maintained school.

I also wish to put on the record, although the hon. Member for Chelmsford did not raise this point, that there is no time limit on the probationary period. There is no question of a teacher having to serve the probationary year within a fixed time after leaving training college.

Most of the difficulties raised with the Department on this issue are illusory. I do not see how the new clause would improve employment prospects or have any particular effect on standards unless the hon. Member assumes that a teacher employed in an independent school is of a higher standard than a teacher in a maintained school, and I would not support that proposition.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Nor would I ever support such an absurd generalisation. Does the hon. Lady not realise that if an established teacher has to undergo a probation period it may interrupt and damage his career prospects?

5.15 p.m.

Miss Jackson

Apparently I have not made myself clear. The whole point of what I was saying about the freedom enjoyed by local authorities is that they can apply for that period to be waived. There is no question of a teacher from an independent school having to serve a probationary year in the maintained system. If a local authority feels that a teacher has already served a period that covers the intentions of the probation period, it can apply to have the period waived and the application will be automatically granted.

Mr. Peter Morrison (City of Chester)

The hon. Lady seems to be contradicting herself. One moment she says that the Secretary of State already has the power in respect of some teachers and the next she says that the new clause is unnecessary. If the clause sets out powers which the Secretary of State already has, why should they not be institutionalised and made the right of all teachers?

Miss Jackson

I do not follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The powers sought in the new clause have already been institutionalised within the grasp of the Secretary of State. That makes any further writing into law unnecessary. The Secretary of State frequently uses his power to waive the probation period and it can be assumed by local authorities that he will automatically grant their requests for the period to be waived. I hope the Opposition will withdraw the new clause, which is unnecessary.

Mr. Freud

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have listened to a 33-minute speech from an ex-Minister and current Shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on a new clause seeking powers which, as the Minister has just explained, already exist, but for the fact that what is currently on the statute book is a "may be" and that what the Opposition seek is a "shall be". As we have had 33 minutes on whether a "may" should become a "shall" and there are 32 new clauses still to be debated, should we not assume that the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford was an effort to do nothing more than filibuster?

Mr. Speaker

I had the misfortune to hear only a few minutes of the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There is a lot of business before the House, and hon. Members will have heard the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud).

Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)

I shall be quite brief. This extremely stupid regulation should have been done away with by whatever Governments were in power after it was introduced. The new clause attempts to get rid of a rather stupid hobble on the freedom of teachers.

If the Secretary of State regards a school as efficient and a teacher from training college completes a year's satisfactory teaching at that school, it should be his right to achieve full qualification without having to ask the Secretary of State and without it being at the whim of a local authority. Surely this is part of the training, and if it is done in an efficient school that should be sufficient to grant the teacher his or her full qualification. On that full qualification depends both salary and promotion prospects.

It is all very well for the hon. Lady, who is normally extremely reasonable, saying that there is no time qualification on gaining this full qualification after training and teaching in an independent school. That is not the point. If a person is denied this qualification for some years because there is no undertaking that one year in an independent school, even if recognised as efficient, will complete the qualification, and if a teacher has to go for several years before transferring to the maintained sector, that will put back the qualification date and, no doubt, the chances of promotion, when one person has may years of qualified service and another person has only a few years.

It is ridiculous to play about with the work of teachers who have legitimately qualified themselves at teacher training colleges, or at universities, and probably in both, by mucking about with the year of probationary teaching. It should be served equally in either the maintained sector or the independent sector, provided each sector's schools are regarded by the Secretary of State as efficient. That should be enough. Why this humbug about teachers? I think all past Governments are to blame for not having wiped out this ridiculous and antiquated hobble on their freedom.

Mr. Neville Sandelson (Hayes and Harlington)


Sir C. Sinclair

A hobble is something that prevents a beast from going at its natural gait.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North)

That is today's word.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Perhaps my hon. Friend should have said obol.

Sir G. Sinclair

As my hon. Friend knows, that is a coin with which one is not familiar until one dies.

It is a silly regulation, and I think that the hon. Lady would gain widespread thanks throughout the teaching profession if she did away with this stupidity. We are trying to get the maximum range of educational exchange. I am not talking about political divisions in education but about qualified teachers who discuss education problems among themselves.

There is quite a large exchange between the maintained and independent sectors. Indeed, it was even larger before there was this dogmatic interference with the direct grant schools. It is found by many of those who have had experience in both sectors—and many wish to have experience in both sectors because they are part of the teaching of the youth of this country—and those who laudably desire such experience that it is made more difficult to acquire by stupid handicaps such as the regulation provides and such as the new clause is designed to remove.

I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues, and the professions which advise the Department, will decide, on reflection, that it is time to have done with this restriction.

Mr. Tom Arnold (Hazel Grove)

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) by saying that it is important to recognise that we are dealing with a practical problem. This is not a matter of ideology, nor is it educational theory, it is a question of what the test should be in determining probationary service as it affects qualification. In turn, it is an issue affecting the rights of teachers. Given the sharp division between the maintained sector and the independent sector, surely it is correct that those rights should be clearly defined and protected.

I agree with the Under-Secretary of State that the Secretary of State has waived the present requirement for many teachers and has accepted many years of teaching in a direct grant school, for example, as being the equivalent, for probationary purposes, of one year in a maintained school. However. waiving a requirement is not the same as establishing a right.

Sir G. Sinclair

That is the point.

Mr. Arnold

That is the central issue with which we are seeking to deal.

Having dealt with the issue of definition, I turn briefly to protection. It is our contention that in practical terms the acceptance of the new clause would ease the position of teachers in the independent sector who wish to enter the maintained sector. It would ease the plight of some student teachers who face difficulties under the present regulations. It would make for a greater degree of flexibility for teachers generally between all schools, whether maintained or not.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Stokes.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stour-bridge)

I am grateful for the great interest which hon. Members show in the few words that I have to say on the new clause.

Mr. Flannery

Especially after yesterday.

Mr. Stokes

I am sure that most Members on both sides of the House, in discussing this non-political matter, wish to break down the isolation and in-breeding of some teachers in the State system. I believe that a period in a direct grant school, an independent grammar school, a public school or a preparatory school might well do a teacher from a State school a very great deal of good.

Mr. Heffer

It did not do me any good.

Mr. Mike Noble(Rossendale) rose

Mr. Stokes

Surely all reasonable people—

Mr. Noble

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Sinclair rose

Mr. Stokes

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G Sinclair).

Sir G. Sinclair

When my hon. Friend uses the word "reasonable", does he define that as being in a state of educational grace able to receive new experiences?

Mr. Stokes

Much as I admire my hon. Friend, I should hesitate to reply to that somewhat difficult and philosophical question. I must assume that everyone in this honourable House is, or hopes to be, in a state of grace.

Surely all reasonable people want closer links between the State system and other schools. I sometimes feel nowadays that some State teachers, especially some of the younger ones, are almost in danger of becoming like Trappist monks. I believe they should mix more in the world in every way they can. That, incidentally, might improve their employment position.

I turn briefly to my own experience. I started my career just before the war as a schoolmaster. In those unregenerate days I had no probationary period. The only advice I received from my headmaster was never to turn my back on the enemy when writing on the blackboard.

Mr. Heffer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Stokes

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I know that Mr. Speaker wants us to move quickly.

I taught the bottom form everything at a preparatory school. The members of the form were aged seven or eight. The headmaster believed—probably correctly—that in those days the British Empire was largely run by those who had two gifts—namely, those who had mastered their Latin irregular verbs and who at cricket could bowl a good length. Perhaps we have lost our Empire because we do not have such people nowadays, but seriously—

Mr. Freud

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether it might not now be right to have a two-minute silence.

Mr. Speaker

That will not be required.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) will appreciate that I fully endorse his idea of mixing. He will no doubt be surprised to know that I went to a public school—Haileybury College. I used to deliver meat on a Saturday morning.

Mr. Stokes

I know and admire the hon. Gentleman very much. I have often told him that if I were a dictator I would not shoot him, but at least I would shut him up. However, perhaps I may be serious. I am trying to be brief.

Teachers surely must never forget that they are citizens also, as well as teachers, and that a period for them in the outside world will always do them a power of good. If some cannot even now get the probationary period they want, they must try something else. They can go, for instance, into industrial education. They can try to get into the training boards or the Manpower Services Commission, which employs hundreds and hundreds of people. They can try to get into the Civil Service or into industry, on the training or personnel side. If they wish, they can try to get into the educational branches of the Armed Services. Having had this experience of perhaps two or three years, when the economic climate improves—as we hope it will with a new Government—they can return to teaching enriched by their outside experience.

Finally, I believe that teachers need to be balanced, experienced and wise people with a knowledge of the world and, above all, with high standards and high ideals. We know that their influence on children is second only to that of the home. Let us ensure that their apprenticeship is as wide and as far reaching as possible.

Mr. Ronald Bell rose

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) rose

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Bell.

Mr. Ronald Bell

I would gladly have followed a contribution by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but no doubt he will have the opportunity of following mine.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr, St. John-Stevas) in his moving of the Second Reading of the new Clause. I feel that the Under-Secretary has underestimated its importance, as has the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I say that for a number of reasons, which I can put succinctly.

The first reason is that these regulations in this form should never have been made at all. I refrain from asking who made them because I might not like the answer. I do not know who made them. A good many of the regulations under the Education Act 1944, to which I have objected at various times, have come, I am afraid from both sides in politics. I have always taken the view that the regulation-making power under the 1944 Act has been over-used and sometimes abused— for example, forbidding the starting off of children at the age of five with a half-day in school, which, incredibly enough, is made under the default powers under the Act. That is a great abuse.

This is a regulation which should never have been made, because the training of teachers should be judged on its adequacy as training. They go to a training college. We have increased the period to three years of formal training. I do not know whether that is a good thing. Anyway, we have done that. Then we say that they must have a year's practical experience in school. I see no reason whatsoever why it should be said that that school must be a maintained school. Some would argue—possibly the hon. Member for Isle of Ely—that in a maintained school they would have experience of larger classes and possibly of greater disciplinary problems than they would have in a non-maintained school. I do not know about the disciplinary problems. I rather doubt whether there is an awful lot of difference normally, nowadays—we are speaking of 1976—in the size of classes in those two kinds of schools, because there has been a notable reduction in the size of classes in the maintained schools, partly as a result of the falling birth rate.

The objection that I see to maintaining this regulation, which, after all, says in direct terms that the teacher must spend that year's practical training in a maintained school, is that what the Secretary of State has is a dispensing power, which he may or may not use. Apparently, at present, he uses it upon the initiative of a local authority, not of a teacher. I see the Under-Secretary nodding in agreement. Therefore, it is not the teacher who can apply to the Secretary of State for dispensation but the local authority.

We must bear in mind that the present Government have certain policies in relation to education which could very easily result—which they want to result—in a diminuation of the non-maintained sector. first by eliminating the direct grant schools and, secondly—the Government have made no secret of it—after that, by diminishing the field of independent education.

If those things are done, both the first and the second, one could easily have a considerable number of teachers who waited to move into the maintained sector, as a matter not of choice but of necessity, because of the policies of the Government of the day. It could be a great hardship to them if they were not treated as qualified teachers, in spite of the fact that they might be highly qualified and highly experienced, because they had not done one year in a maintained school.

There is at present a problem of employment for those coming out of the teacher training colleges, the colleges of education. In this atmosphere there must be a temptation upon the Secretary of State to refuse clearance to some of those who want to transfer from the independent sector to the State-maintained sector and to say "No. There are people coming out of the colleges who have done their year in a maintained school and cannot find work, and I shall not grant qualified status to people who have been in the independent sector." That would be a very wrong thing, but there is no safeguard at all against it happening while this is a matter not even of regulation but of dispensation from a regulation in each individual case by the Secretary of State.

If the House is of the opinion—as I am of the opinion and I think a good many other people are—that the teacher training rules should be directed solely to ensuring that we turn out properly trained and experienced teachers, I venture to suggest that the new clause should be accepted, because all that it does is to say that a year in a school which is recognised as efficient shall count as the practical year for the teacher who otherwise is qualified. I hope, therefore, that the Secretary of State, who is present and who will, perhaps, reply to the debate, will see the justice of this and, in the present context, the importance of it, and will give a rather more forthcoming answer than we have had from the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Spearing

I think that the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has hit upon a point of difference across the Floor of the House on the question of the practice. The Under-Secretary has said that at present, by circular, this arrangement can continue. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point when he says that if we put this safeguard into the Bill, it becomes mandatory, because the words state that such teachers "shall be recognised". However, that would be going too far because it would give an imprimatur of respectability, from some people's point of view, to a process which would not be thought to be universally acceptable. During the rest of my speech I shall try to show some of the reasons why I do not think it would be acceptable by statute, although it may be acceptable by regulation or circular, to deal particularly with exceptional circumstances that we may be facing.

Curiously enough, although the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) contained a good deal with which I would certainly disagree, the content was very important. He dealt firstly with experience in the outside world. In the context in which he spoke, I believe that he was thinking of the outside world being the independent sector. It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, so I am wrong about that, but I think we all agree that, in many parts of the education service it would be better if teachers were not recruited until they were 23 or 24, and therefore the question of experience would be met. Only mature people would be recruited for teacher training, and perhaps we could afford the extra cost of maintaining them at a reasonable salary at that age. But that is not within the terms of this clause, although it is relevant from the point of view of experience.

The hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that the maintained sector should encourage in-breeding. I should have thought that if there were any sector that encouraged in-breeding it was the private sector. That has been the experience of people in education because, on the whole, the movement—if there is any movement—has been from the maintained into the private sector. Indeed, some people have been unkind enough to call them refugees from the maintained sector where, because of the nature of the situation, things are sometimes more difficult and taxing for the skills of teachers.

We must look at the question of sector in terms of size. Conservative Members have spoken as though there is a balanced situation but, without looking at the figures, I suggest that the difference in size is that the maintained sector has been 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of children of school age, while the private sector has been between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., or less. Therefore, it is not a question of balance between the two, but a question of a massive maintained sector and a small non-maintained or private sector.

The reference to a bridge and a free flow is not a reference to two halves of a town on either side of a river, with the citizens passing to and fro about their business to the mutual benefit of both. There is not a bridge of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There is not a bridge between the two sectors in the sense that there is free passage between them, because in the non-maintained sector there is a gateway, and that gateway is one of selection, or finance, or a combination of the two. Therefore, it is not a bridge in the normally accepted sense of the word, and when we debate this matter the word in its wholesome and good sense is used in a context which I do not believe is correct.

Mr. Flannery

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the private sector, because of the vast amount of money available to people who send their children to these schools, the classes are small and it is common for a teacher to teach only about 12 children? Does he further agree that there is no proof that a teacher who can grapple with 12 children can manage 40 or 45 children, as often happens in the maintained sector?

Mr. Spearing

I think that my hon. Friend is on to a big distinction between the two sectors. It is one not only of size but of internal characteristics, because one characteristic of the private sector is that the sanctions of the school on the pupil and on the parents are of a different nature. I hope that anybody who criticises the public sector, as distinct from the private one, will remember that. I am glad to note the agreement of the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) because he knows that only too well. There is a different set of sanctions in the private sector from those that one finds in the maintained sector. Although I agree with my hon. Friend about sanctions and size, I should not necessarily rest the distinction on that alone, because there is a wide range of sanctions inside the public sector itself.

5.45 p.m.

There is one matter that has not been raised so far in this debate, but it is germane to the whole question before us. What happens in the probationary year? Why is there a probationary year anyway? What must happen for a teacher to fail it and therefore not be qualified? Clearly, in that year in any good school the probationary teacher has a supervisor. It may be the head of the subject department, the headmaster, or an older member of the staff who, as part of his duties, is asked to look after young teachers during their first year's teaching. One problem facing many schools is that there are far too many younger teachers. This is particularly so in the big cities. The proportion is such that it is difficult for the older teachers with experience to handle the younger members, but during that year these young teachers must have support, and at the end of it somebody has to say that they have benefited by that year and are therefore qualified and have passed their probationary year.

Who is to decide that in the independent or private sector if the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford is accepted? Is it to be the headmaster, or somebody from the Department of Education and Science? As I understand it, at the moment in the maintained sector this is done by the local education committee. The committee has its professional advisers, its chief education officer and its heads of department, and between them they have a corpus of educational knowledge and pedagogical skills that are not found in the individual school in the private sector.

During the probationary period there are visits to the school by inspectors. In a good maintained school the head will certainly be concerned with his young teachers, and at the end of the year some form of test, some sort of—dare I say it?—examination or qualification as to standards will be applied. It may be that they have not been applied in the past as much as some would wish. It may be that to some extent the process has been a formality, but the opportunity is there, and I believe that that opportunity is best taken care of in the maintained sector, where not only is variety of experience far greater but the degree of supervision and general professional standard can be known, understood and complied with.

If the hon. Member for Chelmsford wishes to press this change, he must say how he envisages its working in the private sector not only during that year but also to provide some generally accepted form of test at the end of the year that will be acceptable not only in the private sector but also in the maintained one, and that creates one problem.

Whilst all schools in the maintained sector are providing education, as all hon. Members would like to see, there are some schools in the private sector which, whilst maintaining and providing some form of education, are also literally selling something else, and that, I think, is something that may create some difficulty with the so-called bridge to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford referred.

Mr. Freud

This new clause seems to take away an essential freedom, and I am surprised that Members of the Conservative Party, a party which has so steadily held out for freedom of education, should propose such a clause.

The freedom that the Secretary of State has always had is to waive the probationary period if he feels that such a period has been served in a school of which he approves. If the new clause were passed it would mean that he would no longer have the right to say "I do not believe that the experience gained in this school is adequate for any other school to which that teacher might go".

I do not believe that there is a difference of opinion in the House about this. Both sides of this honourable establishment want to perpetuate the employment of efficient and qualified teachers, and the only difference that the new clause would make is that the words "shall be recognised" would take over from "may be recognised", which is implicit in the 1944 Act's 1959 amendment.

I believe that there are many instances of private schools—and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) raised one—where the classes are very small and the children come from a particular part of the country, and where one year's teaching in such an establishment is an adequate preparation for going to a different type of school. We on the Liberal Bench will oppose the new clause, because we think the Act at the moment is perfectly adequate and we feel that the Secretary of State should reserve the right to use his discretion if teachers seem to him not to be fully qualified.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Freud

I have sat down.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew (Royal Tunbridge Wells)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) has forgone the opportunity to explain his remarks further. I should like briefly to follow what has been said by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He and I would both agree on the importance of there being a probationary period for teachers as for many other professional people. It is necessary that those who have undergone an academic preparation for professional life should have some exposure to practical problems in the field.

The issue before us seems to be simple. It is whether we should persist with a regulation that cuts down the access to solving this practical problem in a gratuitous and unnecessary way. We should feel it absurd if we were to say that doctors should have a probationary period but that a student doctor who received experience only by working for a doctor operating only in private medicine rather rather than in the National Health Service should not be regarded as having passed a probationary period; or if we applied the principle to apprentices and said that someone who worked in a private enterprise firm rather than a nationalised industry should not be regarded as having completed a probationary period. I would say that was a distinction that had far more to do with dogma and doctrine than practical considerations. That is the essence of the problem with which we are concerned.

What we have to ask is whether the regulation ought to be supported to the extent that it restricts student teachers' access to the practical problems in the field and the test of legislation should be whether the fullest access is afforded or whether a restriction is imposed. Why should we apply to student teachers a restriction that we do not apply in other fields?

The hon. Member for Newham, South and the hon. Member for Isle of Ely made a superficially attractive point when they said that there were certain private schools where there are small classes. That would be a logical and consistent argument against the new clause were there some other criterion applied by the regulation as it stands save the broad and general criterion that the schools shall be in the maintained sector. No one would argue that there are not schools in the independent sector where there are very small classes. No one would argue that in the non-independent sector a teacher is, above all else, skilled and practised in the arts of crowd management, and what we are dealing with is teachers.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Is it not a fact that in some of the city centres, where the population is fading and which have small constituencies, there are maintained schools with remarkably small classes?

Mr. Mayhew

Yes, that is right, and it is something for which we must all work. We are working for smaller classes and if expenditure by the Government were applied according to a more sensible system of priorities, we could get there very much more quickly.

What we are talking about in this debate is whether we should apply a quite artificial restriction in the case of the independent schools and whether we are to maintain a criterion which is very general indeed under the present legislation. The present legislation says that the probationary year must be served in a maintained school. The Under-Secretary of State recognised the general absurdity of this restriction in her very brief speech—brevity was perhaps its best feature.

What she said was that the criterion was not strictly adhered to and, under the 1975 circular, local authorities are told that they may assume that it will not be enforced by the Minister. If that is the case and if local authorities may assume that it will not be enforced, why object to the new clause? It is not as though the new clause said that a probationary year may be served in any independent school only as long as it is independent. What we are saying is that it shall be taken to be served if it is completed in a school which is not only independent but recognised by the Secretary of State, that is to say, in an independent school which is also an efficient independent school.

The hon. Lady was forced to accept that criticism of her argument. She turned to the next line of defence and said that the reason that the Government insist on keeping it in the legislation, notwithstanding that it may be assumed that it will hardly ever apply, is that not every independent school is acceptable. If we apply that argument to the legislation as it stands, the retort is that perhaps not every maintained school is a suitable field for the service of a probationary year. All we are saying is that there should be no artificial distinction between the independent sector and the maintained sector.

It follows that the Government want to object to the new clause in order to shut out certain teachers and certain schools. Those certain schools are efficient schools, and to do so will inevitably add to the unemployment problems of student teachers. All of us must have had letters recently from student teachers who have been unable to get jobs and who have been unable to get schools in which to serve their probationary period. I have one here which says: Of the 160 third year students leaving college this year only six have found jobs and only 24 of the 50 fourth year students. Why increase the difficulties that student teachers are now experiencing? It seems to me that there can be only one reasonable criterion and that is the efficiency of the school in which the probationary year is to be served. If we stipulate that, we stipulate all that is necessary. Merely to say, as the hon. Lady did, that there is no time limit for the service of the probationary year is to add insult to the injury already occasioned on some pretty intelligent people.

Of course there is no time limit. One can serve one's probationary year 15 years after one finished academic training, but one will probably have forgotten it in half that period and there is not much consolation for student teachers to be told "When a job becomes available, you will not be shut out from doing your probationary year just because several years have elapsed since you completed your academic training". This clause contains a lot of common sense and I hope that it will be accepted.

Mr. George Gardiner (Reigate)

It has not been often in debates on this Bill, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, that one has had the chance to comment upon a point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). Perhaps that is just as well. He said that the new clause would limit freedom in education, not extend it. I would simply ask him to appreciate that there is a great deal more to freedom in education than simply freedom for the Secretary of State.

I was rather more interested in what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said about the notion of bridge building and keeping bridges open between the maintained and non-maintained sectors. Of course there is great imbalance in size between the two sectors, and teachers and pupils in the non-maintained sector often enjoy considerable advantages. But one cannot accept that the idea of bridges is invalid simply because too few people cross them. I want more to do so, but to achieve that one does not blow up the existing bridges. That was the burden of the hon. Member's argument.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Spearing

I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to attribute to me words that I did not say. I did not say that I wanted to increase the number crossing these bridges. I said that they were toll bridges or drawbridges or a combination of both. Would he agree with that?

Mr. Gardiner

I was not seeking to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. I think that his point was that to argue as we do about keeping bridges open was not valid because too few were crossing them. I want to stress the importance of maintaining bridges between the two sectors and ensuring that more people cross them.

A number of co-operative arrangements have been made between the two sectors by which pupils in one kind of institution can have experience in the other and share certain facilities. There has long been interchange between the two sectors in sport, but there have also been some notable experiments in maintained and non-maintained schools pooling facilities, locally, for example in sixth-form study courses.

The new clause is principally concerned with teachers. I underline the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) made far more wittily than I could do. We want more movement of teachers between the two sectors, and he stressed the need to ensure that some of those who spend the bulk of their lives in the maintained sector should have experience of the non-maintained schools. The argument is equally valid, of course, the other way round.

Mr. Flannery

What about pupils?

Mr. Gardiner

I have already referred to pupils.

This would greatly broaden the experience of teachers which they could pass on to their pupils, and both categories of teacher would benefit. We are used to the argument about the great advantage of people in industry and commerce being seconded into the Civil Service and vice versa. The same argument could be applied to this case. It would broaden job opportunities and guarantee teachers greater employment possibilities. This is particularly important with the growing queue of unemployed trained teachers.

The Under-Secretary argued that because the Secretary of State already had such powers, which were frequently used, there was no need for the new clause. If these powers are used so frequently, why not give the guarantee and remove a blockage which causes so much irritation? She quoted Circular 70/75, but the point of that is to put the onus on the local education authority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold) said, waiving requirements is far different from establishing a right and it is the right that we are after here.

The hon. Lady was worried about the implications of making this provision automatic, but she glossed over the fact that it would be applied only to those independent schools recognised by the Department. If a school is to be recognised for one purpose, why can it not be recognised for the other? The new clause would benefit all schools, whether maintained or not, the teachers and, through them, the pupils.

Mr. Heffer

I think that we are discussing the wrong subject. We should be discussing how to find employment for student teachers who will go nowhere after college, who will not even have the opportunity of a probationary period of one year.

Incidentally, I am not in favour of probationary periods. I served five years as an apprentice joiner. When I finished my apprenticeship, all the employers I approached argued that I should take less pay because I was under 21. I said that I had served five years and that if I was not good enough they could sack me at the end of the week. Surely that same principle should apply to teachers. Either they are trained or they are not. I understand that they do teaching practice during training, so probation seems totally unnecessary.

Young student teachers are leaving college with no prospect of employment. Instead of debating the new clause, the Government and everyone else concerned should address themselves to the problem of giving these young teachers the chance to teach. Some of those newly qualified teachers will have no opportunity to teach next year and they will therefore have no period of probation. They may be unemployed for two or three years. What will happen to them? We are discussing the wrong subject.

I made a joke during the speech of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I said that I went to a public school. On a Saturday morning I used to deliver meat to Haileybury College, so I had the experience of seeing a public school. What I found most remarkable about it were the facilities available for the children. I left school at 14, and that experience made me realise how many deprived children there were in the country. I have always said that I wanted not the abolition of the public schools but the opportunity for every child to be educated in a school which had the same pupil/teacher ratio as did the best public schools.

Mr. Stokes

I know Haileybury I was there before the hon. Gentleman was. Nowadays, if we dispassionately examine our modern State schools, we find that they are usually infinitely better and more expensively equipped than are our most famous public schools.

Mr. Heffer

I doubt very much whether that is so. I want the best education possible for all children, irrespective of their class background.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)

I am interested in the facilities available in public schools. My only experience of public schools is visiting them to defeat them in football and cricket matches. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Independent Schools Organisation in its tracts says that the usual pupil/teacher ratio is 18:1? If that ratio were universalised in the State sector, another 150,000 teachers would be needed.

Mr. Heffer

I was about to conclude by saying that if the State schools had the same pupil/teacher ratio as the public schools, there would be jobs for the young teachers who are at present unemployed. The Government must understand that many of us feel passionately that more teachers should be employed to bring down the number of children in the class.

We always used to think that we could beat the Haileybury kids when they came to Hertford. They were much better than we were, and I suffered many black eyes because I fought with them. The Haileybury children were well-trained and we did not always win. Perhaps they were better trained in playing cricket than we were in the local school.

The important issue is not the clause but what we can do for the young student teachers who are faced with unemployment. On that basis the probationary year is unnecessary.

Dr. Boyson

I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). The clause has nothing to do with compulsory comprehensive reorganisation. It is a tidying-up which some of us feel could have been done by a previous Government and which we think should be added to the Bill. In the long term the clause could be of considerable advantage.

Over the years there have been changes in the training of teachers. The length of time spent in the college of education has been increased to three years. There has been an extension of probation and the bringing in of compulsory diplomas for graduates—apart from those studying the "shortage" subjects of maths and science.

What is basic in teacher training is the ability to teach in the class room, irrespective of theory. I have always considered that the year's probationary teaching was beneficial for long-term efficiency and for judging whether a person should continue in the profession.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that at the end of three years students should be sufficiently trained as teachers. I was a member of the Select Committee on Education. Almost all the bodies that gave evidence complained about the lack of in-service training in the class room during the student's three years in the college of education.

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Boyson

That is true, but I am trying to keep to the new clause. Most hon. Members who have had experience of teaching are concerned about the lack of practical experience in colleges of education.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to teachers who moved to independent schools as refugees. The college of education is sometimes a refugee centre for those who cannot stand the pace of inner city schools. It might be a good idea for a student to have a one-year probation period before going to college to enable him to see whether he has the temperament to cope, and then to have theoretical training with a one-year probation period at the end.

The present system of teacher training is rather like studying for the first mate's certificate in the Merchant Navy—it is non-transferable. Young teachers who have had three years' training sometimes find when they get into a school that they cannot cope with the problems, but there is nowhere else they can go without going back almost to the beginning of their training.

Mr. Flannery

Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should go back to the pre-war method of the pupil-teacher, when trainee teachers were used as cheap labour and qualified teachers were out of work, and innocent children were taught by people who had had no training in how to teach.

Dr. Boyson

I always welcome the interventions of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), knowing that he has had practical experience of teaching. I always try to educate him further about the theoretical and practical aspects. I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting a probationary period of a year, with a first-class master teacher in the class room. It would be an apprenticeship, and the teacher would be paid. I am not suggesting that the probationer should replace the teacher. The apprentice teacher would gain the experience of seeing a good teacher at work and realise the possibilities of what could be achieved. That would raise the status of the class room profession.

The trouble with teaching is that as soon as a teacher is promoted he leaves the class room. On scale 2 he gets the key to the stock room cupboard and when he gets a headmastership he takes the morning assembly. The only way to raise the teacher's status is by showing that it is the teacher who is important. I am not suggesting cheap labour or shortening the period of training. I have always been concerned to raise the status of the person who does the job of a class room teacher.

The point at issue is whether the Secretary of State should have the power of dispensation or whether it should be automatic, and that point was taken up by my hon. Friends the Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold). A teacher who does a probationary year in a well-controlled country school has a completely different experience inside the maintained sector from a teacher in a large ghetto school in London. There is no equality of experience. To say that it is easier to teach in an independent school than anywhere in the State sector is a slight upon the State sector. The hon. Member for Hillsborough might even agree with me on that, and it always delights me when that happens.

Eighty per cent. of State schools are running well. It is the 20 per cent. and the possibility of that proportion increasing that worries us. Hon. Members have mentioned the pupil-teacher ratio. One of the reasons for the large classes of 40 is the tendency to have, for example, six senior members of the staff doing pastoral work. That is one of the big problems in the large comprehensive schools. Senior teachers have ceased to teach in a reasonable timetable.

Hon. Members have talked about the 18:1 ratio in independent schools. I do not argue with that. The proportion of pupils to teachers in the inner London secondary schools is 14.6:1 and in the country as a whole that drops to 14.7:1. So the old idea of the 40:1 pupil-teacher ratio does not at present exist. The teachers are there, but perhaps they are not being used as they should be. We should be better in this debate to talk of how to use the teachers we have and to make them effective instead of attempting to change form organisation. We should ensure that the teachers we have are effectively used in the classrooms.

If I ever return to headship I shall offer a job to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridgo (Mr. Stokes) because of his ability in bowling a length. Perhaps that is important in schools. I shall keep an eye on his future career, although I realise that there is competition for his services and a great desire by hon. Members that he should teach cricket and irregular Latin verbs in their constituencies.

There will be no transfers if obstacles are placed in their way. The obstacle that existed until two or three years ago was that a graduate could teach in a school on his degree without training. He could teach immediately, but if he took a teacher training course and failed, he could not teach on his degree. That was one reason why graduates did not take teacher training courses. They preferred to teach on their degree and to have a passport to teach for life.

Someone who has taught for many years in an independent school might, even without Left-wing ideas, want to move to a comprehensive school. But he would find that although he had taught in an independent school and although there was a dispensation, he was not able to move automatically from one side to the other. Many schools in the independent sector are no easier to teach in than those in the maintained sector.

The hon. Member for Newham, South asked how teachers moving from independent to the maintained sector were to be tested. What are inspectors for? In the State sector teachers are approved by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. There are also local inspectors, of whom I am always suspicious because they appoint the people in the first place. I therefore prefer the impartial State inspectors because they do not work for the local authority. Independent schools are also visited by the inspectorate, which is more stringent in its inspection of independent schools than of maintained schools. The problems raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South do not arise because the inspectorate is responsible for passing the teachers.

The more experience that teachers have outside teaching the better. Careers teachers in particular should have worked in industry. Experiments have been conducted on those lines and they originated in the independent sector. A teacher moving from the independent sector to the State sector introduces a new feeling into the school and brings with him new ideas. Such cross-fertilisation can do nothing but good.

The new clause is not a wrecking clause. All we are asking is that the probationary period be as automatic as it is in the State sector, when someone has done a year, been seen by the headmaster and the inspectors and is passed. The ratios in State schools have become better and many of the larger schools have excellent facilities. Since the gap is closing, let us close it further by ensuring that the probationary period in the independent recognised schools is operated as automatically as it is in the State sector.

Miss Margaret Jackson

I propose to reply briefly. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that distresses the hon. and learned Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew). The Opposition's motto is "Never mind the quality, feel the width". The purpose of a debate on a new clause is to discuss its contents, not to have a Cook's tour round education, although that may be an old-fashioned view.

There is a straightforward disagreement between the two sides. As the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, the regulations were introduced in 1959 under a Conservative Government. The point at issue in the new clause is that under existing statutes and regulations the probationary period which a teacher serves is defined as taking place in a maintained school—and I take the point by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about whether there should be a probationary period. Some hon. Members see that as a considerable and insuperable barrier to teachers transferring from the independent to the maintained sector, but I do not share that view. They seem to think that if the regulations were changed, fresh opportunities would be created in employment.

The difficulty for teachers who are already in the independent sector and for

students newly emerged from teacher training college is the availability of jobs in the maintained sector. The question of whether the regulations can be waived if a teacher has served in an independent school follows almost automatically. I find it hard to see how the Opposition argument would increase employment opportunities.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell

What does the hon. Lady mean by "almost" automatically? The word "almost" could be extremely significant in this context.

Miss Jackson

I understand that in no case has a local authority applied for a teacher to have the probationary period waived and had the application refused. If I am wrong, I shall communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Almost the only Opposition Member who seemed to take the point—I hope that my saying this will not damage his career—was the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), who said that we were discussing whether this should be something which was granted when asked for by a local authority, or whether it should be an automatic right for every teacher. That is indeed the point.

It is our view that the right is at present vested with the Secretary of State but exercised almost exclusively by the LEA. The local authorities, as employers and the only people who can offer such a teacher the opportunity of employment in the maintained sector, are the right people also to apply for him to have his probationary period waived. That is the matter of disagreement between us.

I hope that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will seek to withdraw the motion. If not, I must ask my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley rose

Mr. James Tinn (Redcar) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 239.

Division No. 206.] AYES [6.35 p.m.
Abse, Leo Armstrong, Ernest Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Allaun, Frank Ashley, Jack Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Anderson, Donald Ashton, Joe Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Archer, Peter Atkinson, Norman Bates, Alf
Bean, R. E. Gourlay, Harry Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)
Beith, A. J. Graham, Ted Moyle, Roland
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Grant, George (Morpeth) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Grant, John (Islington C) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Bidwell, Sydney Grimond, Rt Hon J. Newens, Stanley
Bishop, E. S. Grocott, Bruce Noble, Mike
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Oakes, Gordon
Boardman, H. Hardy, Peter O'Halloran, Michael
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Harper, Joseph Orbach, Maurice
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Hart, Rt Hon Judith Ovenden, John
Bradley, Tom Hattersley, Rt Hon Hoy Padley, Walter
Bray, Dr Jeremy Hatton, Frank Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Hayman, Mrs Helene Parry, Robert
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Healey, Rt Hon Denis Pavitt, Laurie
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Heffer, Eric S. Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Buchan, Norman Hooley, Frank Pendry, Tom
Buchanan, Richard Horam, John Perry, Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Howell, Rt Hon Denis Phipps, Dr Colin
Campbell, Ian Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Canavan, Dennis Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Price, William (Rugby)
Cant, R. B. Huckfield, Les Radice, Giles
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Carter, Ray Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Richardson, Miss Jo
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hughes, Roy (Newport) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Cartwright, John Hunter, Adam Robinson, Geoffrey
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Roderick, Caerwyn
Clemitson, Ivor Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Cohen, Stanley Janner, Greville Rooker, J. W.
Coleman, Donald Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Roper, John
Concannon, J. D. Jeger, Mrs Lena Rose, Paul B.
Conlan, Bernard John, Brynmor Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Johnson, James (Hull West) Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Corbett, Robin Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Rowlands, Ted
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sandelson, Neville
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Jones, Barry (East Flint) Sedgemore, Brian
Cronin, John Jones, Dan (Burnley) Selby, Harry
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Judd, Frank Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Cryer, Bob Kaufman, Gerald Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Kerr, Russell Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Davidson, Arthur Kinnock, Neil Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Lamble, David Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Lamborn, Harry Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Lamond, James Silverman, Julius
Deakins, Eric Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Skinner, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Leadbitter, Ted Small, William
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Lee, John Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Dempsey, James Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Spearing, Nigel
Doig, Peter Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Stallard, A. W.
Dormand, J. D. Lipton, Marcus Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Litterick, Tom Stoddart, David
Duffy, A. E. P. Lomas, Kenneth Stott, Roger
Dunn, James A. Loyden, Eddie Strang, Gavin
Dunnett, Jack Luard, Evan Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Edge, Geoff Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) McCartney, Hugh Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) McElhone, Frank Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ennals, David MacFarquhar, Roderick Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) McGuIre, Michael (Ince) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Mackenzie, Gregor Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Mackintosh, John P. Tierney, Sydney
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Maclennan, Robert Tomlinson, John
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. McNamara, Kevin Torney, Tom
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Madden, Max Tuck, Raphael
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Magee, Bryan Urwin, T. W.
Flannery, Martin Mahon, Simon Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mallalleu, J. P. W. Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Marks, Kenneth Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Marquand, David Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Ford, Ben Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Ward, Michael
Forrester, John Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Watkins, David
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Mason, Rt Hon Roy Watkinson, John
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Maynard, Miss Joan Weetch, Ken
Freeson, Reginald Meacher, Michael Weitzman, David
Freud, Clement Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Wellbeloved, James
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Mendelson, John White, Frank R. (Bury)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Mikardo, Ian White, James (Pollok)
George, Bruce Millan, Bruce Whitehead, Phillip
Gilbert, Dr John Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Whitlock, William
Ginsburg, David Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Wigley, Dafydd
Golding, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Gould, Bryan Morris, Charles R, (Openshaw) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford) Woodall, Alec TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Williams, Sir Thomas Woof, Robert Mr. James Tinn and
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) Wrigglesworth, Ian Mr. Peter Snape.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE) Young, David (Bolton E)
Adley, Robert Gorst, John Monro, Hector
Aitken, Jonathan Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Montgomery, Fergus
Alison, Michael Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Moore, John (Croydon C)
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Gray, Hamish More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Arnold, Tom Grieve, Percy Morgan, Geraint
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Griffiths, Eldon Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Awdry, Daniel Grist, Ian Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Baker, Kenneth Grylls, Michael Mudd, David
Banks, Robert Hall, Sir John Neave, Airey
Bell, Ronald Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Nelson, Anthony
Bennett Dr Reginald (Fareham) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Neubert, Michael
Benyon, W. Hampson, Dr Keith Newton, Tony
Berry, Hon Anthony Hannam, John Nott, John
Biffen, John Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Onslow, Cranley
Biggs-Davison, John Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Blaker, Peter Hastings, Stephen Page, John (Harrow West)
Body, Richard Havers, Sir Michael Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hayhoe, Barney Paisley, Rev Ian
Bottomley, Peter Heseltine, Michael Parkinson, Cecil
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Hicks, Robert Pattie, Geoffrey
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Higgins, Terence L. Percival, Ian
Bradford, Rev Robert Holland, Philip Peyton, Rt Hon John
Braine, Sir Bernard Hordern, Peter Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brittan, Leon Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Prior, Rt Hon James
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Howell, David (Guildford) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Brotherton, Michael Hunt, David (Wirral) Raison, Timothy
Bryan, Sir Paul Hunt, John Rathbone, Tim
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Hurd, Douglas Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Buck, Antony Hutchison, Michael Clark Rees-Davies, W. R.
Budgen, Nick Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Bulmer Esmond James, David Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Burden F. A. Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rifkind, Malcolm
Carlisle, Mark Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Jopling, Michael Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Channon, Paul Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Kershaw, Anthony Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Kilfedder, James Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Clegg, Walter Kimball, Marcus Royle, Sir Anthony
Cockcroft, John King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Sainsbury, Tim
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) King, Tom (Bridgwater) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cordle, John H. Kitson, Sir Timothy Scott, Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick Knight, Mrs Jill Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Corrie, John Knox, David Shelton, William (Streatham)
Costain, A. P. Lamont, Norman Shepherd, Colin
Critchley, Julian Lane, David Shersby, Michael
Crouch, David Langford-Holt, Sir John Sims, Roger
Crowder, F. P. Latham, Michael (Melton) Sinclair, Sir George
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Lawrence, Ivan Skeet, T. H. H.
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Lawson, Nigel Speed, Keith
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Lester, Jim (Beeston) Spence, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Drayson, Burnaby Lloyd, Ian Sproat, Iain
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Loveridge, John Stainton, Keith
Durant, Tony Luce, Richard Stanbrook, Ivor
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John McCrindle, Robert Stanley, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Macfarlane, Neil Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Elliott, Sir William MacGregor, John Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Eyre, Reginald Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Stokes, John
Fairgrieve, Russell McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Stradling Thomas, J.
Farr, John Madel, David Tapsell, Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Marten, Neil Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Fookes, Miss Janet Mates, Michael Tebbit, Norman
Forman, Nigel Mather, Carol Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Maude, Angus Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Fox, Marcus Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Townsend, Cyril D.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Mawby, Ray Trotter, Neville
Fry, Peter Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Tugendhat, Christopher
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mayhew, Patrick van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gardiner Edward (S Fylde) Meyer, Sir Anthony Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Viggers, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan Mills, Peter Wakenam, John
Goodhart Philip Miscampbell, Norman Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Goodhew, Victor Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Wall, Patrick
Goodlad, Alastair Moate, Roger Walters, Dennis
Warren, Kenneth Wiggin, Jerry
Weatherill, Bernard Winterton, Nicholas TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, John Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William Younger. Hon George Mr. Fred Silvester.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 276.

Division No. 207.] AYES [6.46 p.m.
Adley, Robert Glyn, Dr Alan Mawby, Ray
Aitken, Jonathan Goodhart, Philip Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Alison, Michael Goodhew, Victor Mayhew, Patrick
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Goodlad, Alastair Meyer, Sir Anthony
Arnold, Tom Gorst, John Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Mills, Peter
Awdry, Daniel Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Miscampbell, Norman
Baker, Kenneth Gray, Hamish Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Banks, Robert Grieve, Percy Moate, Roger
Bell, Ronald Griffiths, Eldon Monro, Hector
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Grist, Ian Montgomery, Fergus
Berry, Hon Anthony Grylls, Michael Moore, John (Croydon C)
Biffen, John Hall, Sir John More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Biggs-Davison, John Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morgan, Geraint
Blaker, Peter Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Body, Richard Hampaon, Dr Keith Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hannam, John Mudd, David
Bottomley, Peter Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Neave, Airey
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Nelson, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Hastings, Stephen Neubert, Michael
Braine, Sir Bernard Havers, Sir Michael Newton, Tony
Brittan, Leon Hayhoe, Barney Nott, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Heseltine, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Brotherton, Michael Hicks, Robert Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Bryan, Sir Paul Higgins, Terence L. Page, John (Harrow West)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Holland, Philip Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Buck, Antony Hordern, Peter Paisley, Rev Ian
Budgen, Nick Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Parkinson, Cecil
Bulmer, Esmond Howell, David (Guildford) Pattie, Geoffrey
Burden, F. A. Hunt, David (Wirral) Percival, Ian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hunt, John
Carlisle, Mark Hurd, Douglas Peyton, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Hutchison, Michael Clark Price, David (Eastleigh)
Channon, Paul Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Prior, Rt Hon James
Churchill, W. S. James, David Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Raison, Timothy
Clark, William (Croydon S) Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rathbone, Tim
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Clegg, Walter Jopling, Michael Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cockcrolt, John Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Kaberry, Sir Donald Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Cordle, John H. Kershaw, Anthony Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Cormack, Patrick Kilfedder, James Rifkind, Malcolm
Corrie, John Kimball, Marcus Rippon, Rt. Hon Geoffrey
Costain, A. P. King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Critchley, Julian King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rodgers Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Crouch, David Kitson, Sir Timothy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Crowder, F. P. Knight, Mrs Jill Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Knox, David Royle, Sir Anthony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Lamont, Norman Sainsbury, Tim
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Lane, David St. John-Stevas, Norman
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Langford-Holt, Sir John Scott, Nicholas
Drayson, Burnaby Latham, Michael (Melton) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Lawrence, Ivan Shelton William (Streatham)
Durant, Tony Lawson, Nigel Shepherd, Colin
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lester, Jim (Beeston) Shersby, Michael
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Silvester, Fred
Elliott, Sir William Lloyd, Ian Sims, Roger
Eyre, Reginald Loveridge, John Sinclair, Sir George
Fairgrieve, Russell Luce, Richard Skeet, T. H. H.
Farr, John McCrindle, Robert Speed, Keith
Fisher, Sir Nigel Macfarlane, Neil Spence, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles MacGregor, John Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Fookes, Miss Janet Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Sproat, Iain
Forman, Nigel McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Stainton, Keith
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Madel, David Stanbrook, Ivor
Fox, Marcus Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Stanley, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Marten, Neil Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Fry, Peter Mates, Michael Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mather, Carol Stokes, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Maude, Angus Stradling Thomas, J.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Tapsell, Peter
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) Viggers, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Wakeham, John Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Tebbit, Norman Walder, David (Clitheroe) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret Wall, Patrick Younger, Hon George
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) Walters, Dennis
Townsend, Cyril D. Warren, Kenneth TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Trotter, Neville Weatherill, Bernard Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Tugendhat, Christopher Wells, John Mr. W. Benyon.
van Straubenzee, W. R. Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Vaughan, Dr Gerard Wiggin, Jerry
Abse, Leo Ennals, David Leadbitter, Ted
Allaun, Frank Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lee, John
Anderson, Donald Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Archer, Peter Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Armstrong, Ernest Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Lipton, Marcus
Ashley, Jack Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Litterick, Tom
Ashton, Joe Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lomas, Kenneth
Atkinson, Norman Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Loyden, Eddie
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Flannery, Martin Luard, Evan
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Bates, Alf Foot, Rt Hon Michael McCartney, Hugh
Bean, R. E. Ford, Ben McElhone, Frank
Beith, A. J. Forrester, John MacFarquhar, Roderick
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Mackenzie, Gregor
Bidwell, Sydney Freeson, Reginald Mackintosh, John P.
Bishop, E. S. Freud, Clement Maclennan, Robert
Blenkinsop, Arthur Garrett, John (Norwich S) McNamara, Kevin
Boardman, H. Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Madden, Max
Booth, Rt Hon Albert George, Bruce Magee, Bryan
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Gilbert, Dr John Mahon, Simon
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Ginsburg, David Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Bradley, Tom Golding, John Marks, Kenneth
Bray, Dr Jeremy Gould, Bryan Marquand, David
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Gourlay, Harry Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Grant, George (Morpeth) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Grant, John (Islington C) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Buchan, Norman Grimond, Rt Hon J. Maynard, Miss Joan
Buchanan, Richard Grocott, Bruce Meacher, Michael
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Campbell, Ian Hardy, Peter Mendelson, John
Canavan, Dennis Harper, Joseph Mikardo, Ian
Cant, R. B. Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Millan, Bruce
Carmichael, Nell Hart, Rt Hon Judith Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Carter, Ray Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hatton, Frank Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Cartwright, John Hayman, Mrs Helene Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Healey, Rt Hon Denis Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Clemitson, Ivor Heffer, Eric S. Moyle, Roland
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Hooley, Frank Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Cohen, Stanley Hooson, Emlyn Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Coleman, Donald Horam, John Newens, Stanley
Concannon, J. D. Howell, Rt Hon Denis Noble, Mike
Conlan, Bernard Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Oakes Gordon
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Corbett, Robin Huckfield, Les O'Halloran, Michael
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Orbach, Maurice
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cronin, John Hughes, Roy (Newport) Ovenden, John
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Hunter, Adam Padley, Walter
Cryer, Bob Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Palmer, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Jaskson, Colin (Brighouse) Parry, Robert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Pavitt, Laurie
Davidson, Arthur Janner, Greville Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Pendry, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Jeger, Mrs Lena Perry, Ernest
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) John, Brynmor Phipps, Dr Colin
Deakins, Eric Johnson, James (Hull West) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Price, William (Rugby)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Radice, Giles
Dempsey, James Jones, Barry (East Flint) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Doig, Peter Jones, Dan (Burnley) Richardson, Miss Jo
Dormand, J. D. Judd, Frank Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kaufman, Gerald Robinson, Geoffrey
Duffy, A. E. P. Kerr, Russell Roderick, Caerwyn
Dunn, James A. Kilroy-Silk, Robert Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Dunnett, Jack Kinnock, Neil Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Eadie, Alex Lambie, David Rooker, J. W.
Edge, Geoff Lamborn, Harry Roper, John
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Lamond, James Rose, Paul B.
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Ross, Rt. Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Wellbeloved, James
Rowlands, Ted Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Sandelson, Neville Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) White, James (Pollok)
Sedgemore, Brian Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Whitehead, Phillip
Selby, Harry Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) Whitlock, William
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Wigley, Dafydd
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Tierney, Sydney Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C) Tinn, James Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) Tomlinson, John Williams, Sir Thomas
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Torney, Tom Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Tuck, Raphael Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Silverman, Julius Urwin, T. W. Wise, Mrs Audrey
Skinner, Dennis Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Woodall, Alec
Small, William Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) Wool, Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Spearing, Nigel Walker, Terry (Kingswood) Young, David (Bolton E)
Stallard, A. W. Ward, Michael
Stoddart, David Watkins, David TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Stott, Roger Watkinson, John Mr. Peter Snape and
Strang, Gavin Weetch, Ken Mr. Ted Graham.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. Weitzman, David

Question accordingly negatived.

Forward to