We have here for discussion today the Report of the Scottish Education Department for 1963. The references to improvements in that Report will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, but there are so many aspects of Scottish education which give great cause for concern that I propose to devote my remarks to these. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will give minute details of the improvements.
The gravest problem facing Scottish education is the shortage of teachers. I emphasise at once that there is no easy solution. Anyone who thinks that there is is being very foolish. In 1963, there was a shortage of 3,482 teachers, representing an overall shortage of 8·5 per cent. The position is even worse among categories of specialist teachers, particularly among teachers of mathematics. In this category, the shortage last year was 22 per cent., which is very serious. It is estimated that, in 1966, the shortage will have grown to 5,000 and, in 1975, to 7,000. This is not, therefore, a short-term problem but one which will face us for a considerable time.
In estimating future shortages the figures of 5,000 and 7,000 take no account of the proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 16, nor of very much-needed development in further education. Successive Secretaries of State have had more advice on the problem of the shortage of teachers than on almost any other, but I say advisedly that the tragedy is that so often they have rejected it.
The latest report published on this problem came recently from the University of Glasgow Appointments Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has already had a copy of it, but I advise him very strongly to study it and to act on its suggestions. I cannot deal with all the excellent proposals it contains, but I draw the Committee's attention to certain parts of it. The Committee examined various aspects of the shortage, particularly as it affects graduate teachers, and made this comment on page 5:
If it is accepted that in this highly competitive field of recruitment, teaching is unlikely to improve on its present share of available man-power, the only logical argument thereafter is to try to increase the numbers taking degrees or their equivalents.
That seems obvious indeed, but the Knox Committee, appointed by the Secretary of State in 1957, seven years ago, made the very point that is made in this report from Glasgow University. What is more the Knox Committee not only made that point, but suggested means of increasing the pool of educated manpower.
In its examination of the problem the Knox Committee was very concerned indeed at the number of pupils who left senior secondary schools in Scotland without completing their courses. Although more pupils are remaining at school today—and it would be very surprising if the figure were not higher, since we have a greater number of children in school due to the increased birthrate, and, of course, we welcome the increase—the position is still very far from satisfactory.
The Department's Report for 1963 says that 67 per cent. of all pupils leave school at the earliest moment possible, that is, when they reach the age of 15. Of those pupils following courses leading to the Scottish Certificate of Education, nearly 40 per cent. left before completing their fourth year. It is shocking that 40 per cent. of those who were considered fit to take a certificate at the O grade, or to take a certificate at the higher grade, did not remain in school long enough to take any of these examinations. I do not suggest that all of them could have obtained qualifications to enter a university or to enter colleges of education, but I am convinced that quite a large proportion of them could have done so.
The Knox Committee was also convinced of that, because in May, 1957, it wrote to the Secretary of State on the draft bursary regulations and urged that school bursaries should be raised considerably. It suggested that the bursary for those in the fourth year of a secondary school should be £78, and that for those in the fifth and sixth years it should be £104. We all know how the cost of living has increased under Tory Governments over the last seven years, but at the beginning of last year, six years after the Knox Committee proposals were made, fourth year students instead of receiving £78 received £45, and fifth and sixth year students, instead of receiving £104, received £60. Those figures are far below what the Knox Committee considered was necessary to encourage more of these young people who were fit to take certificate courses to continue at school.
I had the honour to be a member of the Knox Committee and I recall the evidence on the point which the hon. Lady has made. If the hon. Lady reads all the relevant paragraphs, I think that she will agree that one compelling factor in the point that she is making had nothing to do with bursaries, unfortunately, because that was a matter which might have been put right, but had to do with social reasons, particularly in relation to the very large earnings open to those young people in competitive alternatives in civil life.
The hon. Lady has backed to the hilt my case and the case put forward by the Knox Committee. I did not want to waste hon. Members' time. I thought that everyone would take it for granted that young people, once they saw their friends earning big wages, while they themselves were receiving these small grants, would feel that they wanted to leave school and be like their friends. I have read the Knox Committee's Report many times, and did so again only yesterday. The hon. Lady's intervention has backed up the case that I was making.
Six years after the Knox Committee made its recommendations, students were still receiving very much less than it proposed. The Government have now raised the figures to £70 and £100 respectively, but they are still a few pounds below what was suggested by the Knox Committee, seven years ago, and I stress again that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living during those seven years, and there has also been a considerable increase in the wages which young people can earn. This shillyshallying, parsimonious Government must be held responsible for the loss of a considerable number of potential teachers.
I propose now to say a word about the responsibility of parents, because this is something which I stress whenever I speak on education. I believe that a boy or girl of 15 ought not to be allowed to decide to leave school. The home background and the influence of the parents can play an important part in ensuring that more young people remain at school. I hope that every hon. Member will stress this point when speaking to parents or to the public.
I deal next with another part of this report from Glasgow University. The appointments committee interviewed a number of students. It was trying to discover the deterrents; the matters which prevented graduates from entering colleges of education. Under the heading "The Post-Graduate Year Spent in College of Education", the Report says, on page 10:
The argument for payment during training has become more insistent during the past few years and is likely to grow in strength as time goes on … Most students are well aware of the normal practice in industry, the Civil Service, nationalised undertakings and certain other professions where graduates are paid during (raining and they argue strongly
that there should be some form of payment at the same stage in teacher training. We are fairly certain that the matters which have been discussed under this heading now form the most commonly stated deterrent to the recruitment of graduates to teaching.
This is not news, and it certainly is not news to the Secretary of State and to his predecessor, because in 1957 the Knox Committee recommended that during the period of teacher training grants equivalent to those paid by the D.S.I.R. should be paid to those in training. The Government scorned the advice of their own Committee. They took no action on that important recommendation. The Report marks this as the greatest deterrent in attracting graduates to the teaching profession. The Secretary of State and the Government must be severely criticised for the loss of potential teachers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late date, to urge a change of heart on the question of payment to those who take teacher-training.
I turn to the shortage of places in universities, because it is very germane to the shortage of teachers. The increase in the number of those desiring university education consequent on the increase in the birth rate was absolutely foreseeable. But not for this Government. Where were they hiding their head, I just would not know. It is a most reprehensible situation that hundreds of fully qualified Scottish students cannot find a place in our universities. I ask the Secretary of State how many teachers we have lost because of the shortage of university places.
For years, Labour Members have been urging the Government rapidly to expand our existing universities and above all, to build a new university in Scotland. We have had precious little help from any Scottish Tory Member in our fight. Finally, the Government hid behind the Robbins Committee. They said that they could not make an announcement until the Robbins Committee reported. Why this should be so no sensible person in Scotland will ever know, because for a considerable time there has been irrefutable evidence that a sixth university is a "must" for Scotland.
Can the Secretary of State today tell us whether a decision has been reached on the site of the new university? Can he say when building of this sixth uni- versity will begin? Can he give us a categorical assurance that no university expansion is being held back through a lack of capital investment? Most knowledgeable people in Scotland believe that quite a number of projects are being held back because the Government are unwilling to put up the necessary finance.
On the question of the supply of teachers, I indict the Government on at least three points: first, for failing to raise bursaries; secondly, for failing to pay students in training; and thirdly, for failing to provide university places in sufficient numbers. Because the Government have failed in all of these matters they have starved our schools of desperately-needed teachers.
I turn for a short time to the question of attracting married women back to the teaching profession. Is the Secretary of State convinced that everything possible is being done to attract married women back to teaching? From my own experience of teaching, I realise all the difficulties of arranging a timetable to suit women who possibly want only part-time work. But I also realise that much greater efforts must be made to overcome these difficulties. Many married women would be willing to work, say, half a day of five days a week. Others might be willing to work two or three full days a week.
Have the Government done anything to encourage education authorities to make greater use of those women who are willing to do part-time teaching? Have they given any encouragement to local authorities to prepare a register of all the married women teachers in their area? In this respect, as in so many others, more drive and imagination is required from the Government.
I turn to the vexed question of the employment of uncertificated teachers in Scottish schools. In 1951, there were 910 uncertificated teachers. Last year, there were 2,525—and the number is still increasing. This figure represents 6 per cent. of the entire teaching force in Scotland. But the situation is much worse than that in some areas, like Lanarkshire and Glasgow, which have very much more than their share of uncertificated teachers.
In 1951, the Labour Government introduced the special recruitment scheme for teachers. There was no dilution in it at all. I am very pleased that 4,730 teachers have been recruited under this scheme and that 3,610 have completed their training. Had it not been for this scheme, Scottish education would be in a very much worse state than it is. Can the Secretary of State name a single bold, imaginative scheme for the recruitment of teachers which has been produced by the Government over the last 13 years? The answer must be, "No".
Has the Secretary of State taken the trouble to read the resolution on uncertificated teachers which was adopted at the annual general meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland? If he has not, I advise him to do so before he gets hot under the collar, as he has done, and is blatantly offensive to the vast body of Scottish teachers. The greater part of the resolution was constructive.
In the Department's Report we are told that 473 uncertificated teachers had qualifications seriously below standard. Has the Secretary of State, who knows very little about Scottish education, any idea of the damage which can be done to our children by such people, no matter how well-meaning they are? Has he no sense of responsibility for the education of so many of our children who, during almost the whole of their time in school, are being taught by uncertificated teachers, some of whom, in the Department's own words, are seriously below standard? I urge the right hon. Gentleman—and I say this deliberately—to ensure that not one of those seriously sub-standard teachers will teach for another day in a Scottish school.
The other uncertificated teachers should continue to be employed, but on very strict conditions. Many of them are graduates. Many could take their training under the special recruitment scheme. The Secretary of State should lay down a definite time within which they must become certificated. The time suggested in the resolution of the E.I.S. might be too short, but after consultation the Secretary of State should specify a definite time after which, if any of these uncertificated teachers have not become qualified, they will not continue to teach. This will not happen, however, if the Secretary of State continues only with weak exhortations.
Page 74 of the Secretary of State's Report states that
The advantages of becoming certificated were drawn to the attention of 2,500 persons employed as uncertificated teachers in June through a letter addressed to them by the Secretary of State and distributed by the education authorities.
That is not enough. Again, it shows a lack of imagination by the Government, who, I stress, should lay down a time by which the teachers will become trained.
The Secretary of State should forthwith begin discussions with our colleges of education to find how best they can help to give the training. It need not all be done during the ordinary sessions. This is a matter of great urgency and it seems to me that we could have a crash programme to train some of the uncertificated teachers. Why not have discussions about classes at weekends or during vacations, and particularly the longer vacations? If the Secretary of State could be seized of what could be done in this way, I am sure that a great many of those teachers would ultimately become certificated. If the Secretary of State would do what I have been asking, it would go a long way to restore the confidence of teachers and to enhance the status of their profession.
I turn for a short time to the question of school building. I have no doubt that when the Secretary of State replies he will tell us that capital investment in school building is the highest ever. We do not challenge that. The Government's stop-go policy has, however, made it impossible for education authorities to plan ahead. If an education authority like my own builds up a strong team of architects and is ready to launch an all-out attack on our slum schools and the provision of new schools in the development districts, it is always then that down comes the Government's brake on such local authorities.
The Plowden Committee drew attention to this matter. I shall not quote the Report—I intended to, but I have been speaking rather long—but I advise the Secretary of State to read what the Plowden Committee said about the effect of the stop-go policy on public expenditure.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) asked a series of Questions, he was told that some of the information which he requested had not been collated. So he could not have it. It seems strange to us, particularly in the last few weeks, that when the Scottish Tory Members have been putting down "stooge" Questions, and even when they have been asking "stooge" supplementary questions, somehow or other the Secretary of State had all the information in his brief but that important information about the increase in the cost of school building because of the Government's stop-go policy has not been collated. This is disgraceful. Not only should all Scottish Members have this information, but Scottish parents and the public in Scotland should be able to have it, too.
Even the building employers have stated that their industry has suffered more than any other from constantly being used by the Government as a major economic register. Most of them, I imagine, are the Government's friends, but we find proof of what the building employers say when we look at the tables in the Government's own Report. We find that in 1955 the value of projects approved was about £13¼ million. That was an election year. There is always lots of money for capital investment in this, that and the other in an election year. In the following year, however, it dropped to under £10 million, a fall of £3¼ million in one year, not because we did not still need the schools, but because once the election was over, and the Government had won, they did not seem to think that there was any urgency in the building of schools.
In 1962, the value of projects approved was about £27½ million. At that time, we were expecting to have an election, but there were some little local difficulties which prevented the Government from holding one and in 1963 they could not maintain that figure. It was an election year figure and it could not be kept up. In 1963, there was a drop of £2¼ million.
Every education authority has had its estimates drastically cut. The City of Glasgow, which has the biggest pupil population in Scotland, received only 33 per cent. of its estimated needs. It is no wonder that there is a shortage of teachers in Glasgow when one thinks of some of the slum conditions of the schools. In Lanarkshire, we did a bit better, with 66 per cent. of our estimated needs. But Lanarkshire is in the central growth area. The Government boast of the great improvements which they will carry out in the infrastructure of the growth areas. I ask the Secretary of State; is there anything more important in building up the infrastructure of any growth area than the building of schools and technical colleges?
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government are not treating all growth areas similarly, even though the cut in Lanarkshire was bad enough? Is she aware that the value of the three-year school building programme of the Ayr County Council was cut from £7 million to £3 million? Is she further aware of the great concern of parents in the Burgh of Irvine, a growth area, because of the lack of accommodation and having to cope with overspill from Glasgow?
I have looked at the figures for every local authority in Scotland and what my hon. Friend has just said could be said by every hon. Member from every constituency in Scotland, whether Tory or Labour. I will deal with overspill in connection with another matter.
Not only is Lanarkshire the centre of the central growth area, but it has a new town and a big development area, like the one to which my hon. Friend has referred. The Under-Secretary of State told me recently that the special working party had advised the Secretary of State that no special allocation should be given to education authorities with new towns within their boundaries. What did the Secretary of State expect when he gave this remit? With the working of the general grant scheme, every local authority knows that if more is given to another local authority, the authority itself will suffer and receive less. The decision about what should have been done for new towns and big overspill development areas was one that rested fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. He has shuffled off this responsibility, but the Scottish people realise that he was the only person who could have made the decision.
I turn to West Lothian, which was getting 53 per cent. of its estimated needs. It has a new town growing within its boundary, in the very early stages. It wants to attract industry, as we do to the central growth areas. Again, adequate facilities for education are of the greatest importance in these developments. In this field again the Secretary of State has shirked his responsibilities, with the result that thousands of Scottish children are being taught in over-crowded and slum schools and, in some instances, in overcrowded new schools.
The headmaster of a new school in my constituency finds the building too small already and has two classes in another school. He has had to give up one of them because of the growth of population in Bishopriggs, and when he opens in August one of his classes will be taught on the platform of the hall in this almost brand-new school. That is a picture of our school building.
I do not ask the Secretary of State today to announce any further grants for this purpose. I do not think that there is any sense in doing so, because I am certain that the Scottish people will ensure that there is another Secretary of State by the time we have another Scottish education debate.
Perhaps I should add that the people of Britain will see to it that we have another Secretary of State for Scotland.
I turn now to the question of day release. Here again, we find disgracefully low figures. In 1956–57, 11 per cent. of workers under 18 were enjoying day release classes. By 1962–63, the figure had risen to only 12·4 per cent. What have the Government done to improve this? Have they any imaginative schemes? They have done very little indeed. Delay after delay in providing technical colleges has denied many of our young people who leave school at 15 the chance to get the further education which they ought to have. Again, I stress that many of the young people between 15 and 18 are the ones who suffered from being educated in overcrowded classes, had uncertificated teachers very often and were often educated in slum schools. Our position in day release is worse than that in England and Wales. Indeed, it is worse than in almost any other country in Western Europe.
My final point concerns the Wheatley Report. In this field the Secretary of State has shown a deplorable lack of any sense of good public relations. In November, 1961, he appointed the Wheatley Committee. It reported in June, 1963, more than a year ago. The contents of the Report are of great significance to the future enhancement of the status of teachers. Some time after June the Secretary of State asked interested bodies to give their views on the Report, and those views had to be in his hands at the latest by January this year. So I take it that he has had the Report for more than a year and the views for five months, and yet since then there has been complete silence.
On 17th June my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked the Secretary of State whether he had any statement to make. The right hon. Gentleman said a great deal had to be discussed. Have discussions been initiated, and, if so, with whom? Mo discussions have been initiated with the teachers of Scotland on the subject of the Wheatley Report. The right hon. Gentleman also said that there was no question of legislation this Session. Apparently legislation to improve education propects is of little importance to the Government compared with legislation on divorce and the Measure dealing with tourism, which was ill-conceived and took three of our valuable mornings in Committee before it was withdrawn. This illustrates the incompetency of the Government. On this matter of such prime importance to teachers and education the Government cannot find time for legislation.
I tell the Secretary of State that even at this late stage the Opposition will facilitate the passing of such legislation before the end of July. Let it be a Government Measure, not a trumped-up, pretended Private Member's Bill. Let the Minister come forward with it, and we will give him every facility to get it through Parliament. I can tell him that teachers are suspicious that he has decided to reject the recommendations, and who can blame them? His delay in bringing forward legislation has already led to cynicism among the teachers.
There is great resentment at his statement in the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill, when he said that strike action was bound to raise doubts in the minds of Members of Parliament and the public whether the teaching profession should be given wider powers to control its own affairs. I just ask the right hon. Gentleman to read an article in The Times Educational Supplement, not a Labour publication, which said that it was unfortunate that in answering a Parliamentary Question the Secretary of State coupled the teachers' mild reference to strike action with the issue concerning the approval of the Wheatley Report.
The Secretary of State's arrogant attitude ill-befits one who has such serious problems on his hands. Even if he cannot cope with legislation because of all the pseudo-Private Members' Bills with which we have been dealing, perhaps he will today announce what he accepts and what he rejects in the Report. I wish to put on record our praise and thanks for the devoted service by teachers in Scotland, a devotion which is sometimes very sorely tried. At the same time, I condemn the Government who, after 13 years of complete power, have left us with a growing shortage of teachers, almost unbelievable slum conditions in many schools, overcrowded classes, sparse provision for further education and a shortage of university places. Tonight, we shall register our protest, on behalf of Scottish children and parents, in the Division Lobby.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) started her speech welcoming the many improvements which were set forth in the Education Department's Annual Report. She finished her speech—before the last few lines, which were clearly meant to catch the headlines in some newspapers—
—wanted to praise the teachers who have done such great service for Scotland over the years. Those sentiments of the hon. Lady's are echoed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The hon. Lady said, with reasonable foresight, that at least part of my speech would be concerned with the good things which have been done. This is right. If the Committee is to debate this matter seriously we must have truly constructive and helpful criticisms from hon. Members on both sides. The hon. Lady gave us the advantage of many of her ideas, and I admit that some of them are constructive. But it is also right that this annual stocktaking debate should contain a reasonable assessment of the position from the point of view of the Scottish Office.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would not wish me to try to cover the whole field of education, because it is an enormous one, and I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. I shall, therefore, try to concentrate on some of the features that seem specially important at present. Many of them have already been raised by the hon. Lady. Naturally enough, I want to say something about the crucial question of teacher supply, and something about school building—and I shall also talk, not too long, about some aspects of the curriculum and of the work of further education.
Hon. Members will recall the debate which we had upstairs in March on the Brunton Working Party's Report, when we devoted two mornings to considering the new approach that we must make to the secondary education of the large majority of our children—those who are not following courses leading to the Scottish Certificate of Education. General agreement was expressed with the main recommendations of the Report, and I have since then asked education authorities to give effect to the recommendations as soon as possible. My inspectors are working with them preparing plans, and by the end of November this year the authorities will be reporting what their intentions are for carrying out the various recommendations.
In view of our earlier debate I shall not seek to go over this ground again, but I still regard this as one of the most important problems ahead of us. The raising of the school-leaving age makes it even more essential that we should have soundly-based secondary courses established of a kind which will not only stimulate the interest of the young people concerned but will also equip them for work and for life.
I should like to turn now to some of the specific issues which face us in the stock-taking of which I spoke. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said a great deal—and rightly—about the critical importance of an adequate supply of teachers. Certainly, all our plans for the future of our schools depend on our having enough properly qualified teachers to carry them through. But while the difficulties exist—and I shall say more about them presently—I think it right to put them in perspective, and draw the attention of the Committee to the very real progress that we have made.
Last October, almost 40,000 certificated teachers were employed in education authority and grant-aided schools in Scotland—the highest number we have ever had. The average ratio of pupils to certificated teachers—and I stress the word "average"—was 24 to 1; lower than ever before. Since 1951 the number of certificated teachers has risen by almost 20 per cent., by 6,500. The number of men in the profession—graduates and the non-graduate teachers of what are somewhat confusingly called "technical" subjects—has risen by 35 per cent.
In the same period we have recruited about 17,000 newly trained young women from the colleges and have brought back to the schools several thousand married women. Yet the increase in the number of women teachers since 1951 is only 2,600. One thing that Secretaries of State dare not do is to prevent Scots women teachers from marrying and having their families earlier than ever before. This is a fact of the supply situation which we have to accept.
Last October, the education authorities and other school managers estimated that they needed 3,482 more teachers to fill vacancies, to bring all classes within the prescribed maxima and to enable them to dispense with the services of the teachers over 70 years of age who were still in the schools and of all uncertificated teachers. I think that I should make three points about this figure of 3,482 teachers needed. First, it is not the number of unfilled vacancies. The majority of these posts are filled, and, in my view, often quite adequately filled. Secondly, the shortages are not spread uniformly. The greatest difficulties are in the industrial areas, especially in the west.
My third point is one that is probably not widely understood. Nearly two-thirds of the total number of teachers required are needed in secondary schools. The main part of the deficiency there is not in the recognised academic subjects—English, mathematics, and so on. Most of the teachers needed are teachers of art, music, homecraft, commercial and technical subjects, physical education, and so on—that is, teachers who are rarely, if ever, university graduates, but have been trained elsewhere. The shortages in these fields account for more than one-third of the total teacher shortages.
If we are to get a sufficient supply of teachers we must do two things—attract more people into the profession and ensure that those who wish to come in are given the opportunity to train for it. I have also read the report made by Glasgow University Appointments Committee, to which the hon. Lady has referred. She quite properly picked out one or two points in respect of which she thought I had some responsibility for taking action. She has read the report carefully, and she realises that some other matters were stressed in the same report. I shall not give them any publicity, because I believe that if I did it could have exactly the reverse effect to that which we all want, namely, to attract teachers into the profession.
One important inducement is the level of salaries. Few people are ever satisfied with the pay that they get, but I think that over the last few years we have built up a structure of salaries for Scottish teachers which is just and attractive. Over 3,700 people entered training last autumn—more than ever before—so the attraction is there. The picture is not all black. I need say little on salaries today, because a settlement was reached last year, to stand until 1966. This agreement suited both sides. The teachers had the advantage of the larger increase for the whole period, and I welcomed the stability of a three-year agreement.
For people in other occupations who can be induced to become teachers we have the Special Recruitment Scheme, which the Labour Party brought into force. Since the scheme was introduced in 1951, as the hon. Lady told us, 3,610 teachers have become certificated under it, and the numbers are rising each year.
While we are on the question of finance, and in the presence of the Minister of State for Education and Science, I should like to ask what consideration has been given to the question of Income Tax allowances for married women who come back to teaching, and I should also like to know whether any tax incentives can be given in respect of domestic help. These are important issues.
There are a great many important issues of this sort, all of which have to be considered, but I should like to make my speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman has made his point and it may well be one which can be considered.
Increasing numbers of young people are taking up the extra places in higher education now being provided. From them we hope and believe we shall draw the teachers that we need. I have already approved a major programme of expansion, amounting to £7 million, which will double the capacity of the colleges of education, and still further expansion may be necessary when this is completed.
A year ago the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers proposed a crash programme of two colleges, each for 600 girls, to open this October. It was a bold proposal and it has been carried through with skill and vigour. The two colleges will open on time, each with a first year of 200 students. I take this opportunity of congratulating all those concerned on this achievement.
What of the future? We shall continue the measures already being taken and develop them as necessary. The great imponderable in all calculations of future supply is the number of women teachers who will return to teaching once their families are off their hands. The number of girls qualifying for primary work each year is rising fast and now approaches 2,000. If half of them—and of all the other women teachers training with them—come back to the schools later, when their other responsibilities permit, our staffing difficulties will be very much less.
I shall certainly do all I can to help. Already, this year, I have run a second publicity campaign to encourage married women to come back to teaching. If an education authority can show me that by setting up a nursery class for teachers' children it could get back a group of such teachers I shall be ready to agree that the authority should provide it. If there are any other specific ideas which the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, or anyone else, can think of to try to attract back married teachers, I will consider them.
Not only do we need more teachers. If we are to meet the needs of the majority of our young people who are not in the academic stream, we need a great many teachers trained differently than in the past. For many years the colleges have been somewhat circumscribed in the courses which they could offer. Within the next few weeks I shall publish the draft of new Teachers' Training Regulations which, while mainly consolidation, will introduce some changes which are I believe acceptable. By removing some restrictions we shall make it easier for the colleges to train teachers as they ought to be trained, and as the colleges wish to train them, for the work that they are to do.
I have mentioned briefly the efforts we have already made, or have in hand. We are constantly watching their effect and whatever more needs to be done we shall try to do. On any further measures which may become necessary we shall, as in any other matter which so closely concerns the teaching profession, consult their interests and take their point of view fully into account.
Now I turn to educational building. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North, said that she had no doubt that I should be able to announce a total which was higher than ever before, and that is so. This year, work on all educational building in Scotland, excluding universities, was over £61 million, which is 18 per cent. more than at March, 1963. May I take the hon. Lady up on the figures she produced and the arguments which she advanced about the stop-go policy for education in Scotland? Until two years ago, to the best of my knowledge, not a single education authority in Scotland was stopped by me, because of finance, from building any school which it wanted to build. That was up to two years ago. If there has been any stop-go, it has been in the hon. Lady's own county. She knows very well that in the year 1961–62 Lanarkshire did not build any schools at all—or, rather, start any new schools.
I think it a travesty of an argument to say that there has been a stop-go policy in Scottish school building which has prevented counties from going ahead. I think that what the hon. Lady means is that an education authority may make an estimate and propose to spend £5 million, £10 million, or £15 million, but the situation may be such that my Department cuts the estimate. That is not what is normally meant by a stop-go policy.
I wish to take up the Minister's indictment of Lanarkshire County Council. At no time did the council stop building schools. It went ahead with every school that the Secretary of State and his Department allowed to go ahead. If the Secretary of State does not know, his Department will know that very well. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the amounts which have been spent on school building each year—I gave some of them—he will see that in truth there has been a stop-go policy.
Will the Minister tell us why every education authority in Scotland joined in a deputation last year—it was probably the strongest deputation ever sent to St. Andrew's House—to protest in the strongest possible terms about cuts in the educational building programmes?
This is an entirely different problem. I do not in the least object to the hon. Lady saying that there were cuts last year in what local authorities hoped they might be able to do. But this is not what is generally meant by a stop-go policy. As I said to the hon. Lady—I am quite prepared to withdraw it if I am wrong—my information is that in the year 1961–62 the Lanarkshire education authority did not ask to start a single school; it may be that was a year which was perhaps beneficial to other education authorities because they were able to use the money which Lanarkshire did not use.
The actual work done in 1963 amounted to almost £22 million, an increase of about 16 per cent. on 1962. These are record figures, but let me make it perfectly clear that certain education and other authorities have very serious problems in providing schools, particularly because of large increases and shifts in the school population, overspill, and so on. The criticisms which are often made of educational building have to be looked at against the very real achievements of the last decade—I think that even the hon. Lady would agree with that—and, in particular, the last two years.
This summer, we shall indicate the value of programmes for each authority up to the middle of the financial year 1967–68. This means that authorities will know how much work they can start up to the autumn of 1967. They will be able to see their way clear ahead for a period of three years. We intend to go on doing this each year so that there will always be a firm programme for three years ahead.
I hope that education authorities will make the best use of the opportunities which this programme offers. The larger authorities, in particular, should find it much easier to adopt the best methods of contracting, such as serial contracting, or the extended use of industrialised forms of construction. If the three-year programme is to work, each authority will have to decide which schools it proposes to build first and stick to that decision except in the most exceptional circumstances. Any chopping and changing at a later stage will simply mean that the real advantages of forward planning will be thrown away and it will increase the cost.
I hope that the Government will take that unto themselves. A short time ago they prescribed a hospital building programme for Ayrshire, Paisley and Motherwell. Now we are told that the Government have cut it.
The amount of money spent on hospitals has steadily gone up.
The total amount of investment which will be available for school building in Scotland as a whole is: starts to the value of £17 million in 1965–66; £17 million in 1966–67; and £9 million for the first part of 1967–68.
I cannot give way again. If hon. Members desire to take part in the debate they must not expect me to keep giving way.
I have told education authorities that allowance will be made in 1967–68 and subsequent years, if not before—when the demands can be clearly assessed—for the additional accommodation shown to be essential for raising the school leaving age.
And now a word about building for further education. The amount of work done in 1963 was over £5 million for the first time. Over £14 million worth of work is under construction and over £10 million of this should be completed in the present financial year. Among the important new buildings coming into use in the next session are Napier College, Edinburgh, and the Kingsway Trades College, Dundee. Here too, I hope to notify authorities soon about the programme for a period ahead.
These facts and figures show how the educational building programme is expanding, but expansion has to proceed smoothly. We have to see that our resources are devoted to the right projects at the right prices. And I want to emphasise that it is the completion of buildings that matters. It is useless to start more and more if it means taking longer and longer to finish.
I believe that most education authorities appreciate that there is a real limit to the amount of work that can be put in hand at any one time, that the present volume is about as much as they can get on with at a reasonable rate—some £45 million worth on schools alone. Indeed, I think the House should know that a comparison of the work on school building in the two countries shows that in England and Wales the work actually gets done about one-third faster than it does in Scotland. I think this comparison suggests that we would achieve much better results in Scotland by building faster than by putting more work in hand at any one time. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock laughs.
The hon. Gentleman laughs, but it is none the less true that at the moment in Scotland for joiners, plasterers, plumbers, slaters and so on there are more vacancies for workers than there are skilled men available. In those circumstances, is he suggesting that we should put a great deal more work in hand in Scotland?
I would like to see all those concerned with school building making a real effort to reduce the actual construction time for the average school, from the day work starts on the site until it is completed.
I turn now from teachers and building to the work that is being done in the schools. The most significant thing in the past year has been the decision to raise the leaving age. Last week I asked education authorities to take stock for their own areas of the situation which the raising of the leaving age will create—in terms of pupil numbers, accommodation, staffing and, perhaps most important of all, the kind and quality of education to be provided in the extra year. My officers will help Directors of Education with these problems in any way we can. And we shall, of course, also, at all times keep in touch with the teachers' associations in our forward planning. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kilmarnock should not carry on conversations on the Front Bench. Apart from it being very rude, it is generally very stupid.
One of the points I made to education authorities which attracted attention is that it will be open to authorities to decide whether to make provision for the extra year of full-time education in further education. We do not feel it is possible at this stage to lay down any general rules. This is very much something to be decided according to local circumstances—for instance the availability of facilities for vocational training in schools or in neighbouring further education centres. What we are really saying is that where an authority considers that a pupil could use the extra year more profitably either wholly or partly at a further education centre, then they should let him do so. It may be that our present statutory provisions do not cover adequately what we shall want to do. If that is so, we shall certainly consider amendments.
We have already discussed some aspects of school work in the debate upstairs on the Brunton Report and I should like to say something today about developments in the primary schools and the senior secondary schools.
While this major reassessment has been going on, the schools themselves have been showing great initiative in extending and broadening their teaching. Experimental work in science, mathematics and modern languages is taking place in more and more schools, and the idea of introducing these new subjects in the primary schools is now firmly established.
Turning now to the senior secondary schools, we find that developments I mentioned last year have continued. The new syllabuses in physics and chemistry introduced in 1962 have now been adopted by almost all schools. This means that school science in future will provide a much sounder base for the pupil who is going on to study it in further education or at a university. And the pupil who is not going to be a scientist will see much more readily than before the relevance of the work he does in the school laboratory to everyday experience.
Very much the same thing is now taking place in the teaching of mathematics. A committee of practising teachers and Inspectors of Schools have completed a revision of the syllabus which is being tried out in various schools. Here again the object is to take account of modern developments both in the content of mathematics and in its method of presentation, not merely for the benefit of the pupils who are eventually going to specialise but for the type of pupil who has hitherto regarded mathematics as a closed and alien book. I believe that this radical revision of the teaching of mathematics and science in our schools will be of great significance and will increase the number of mathematicians and scientists produced by the schools.
Modern languages will be tackled next. Here again we are appointing a committee of teachers and Inspectors to draw up alternative syllabuses which will be tested in the first place in a group of schools. The object here will be to make language teaching less an exercise in grammar, syntax and literary appreciation, and more a basis for the speaking and understanding of the language.
Television each year is playing a more important part in the classroom. The number of schools watching the broadcasts is now about 700.
I have not the figures here, but I will certainly get them and my noble Friend will give the answer. Glasgow is the first education authority in the United Kingdom to go ahead with the installation of a closed circuit system. All Scottish Members will, I know, join me in congratulating it on its enterprise and courage. I am giving it all the help I can.
I come next to further education, technical and commercial. Perhaps the commercial side—with its business courses, retail distribution and so on as well as accounting and secretarial work—is not so widely understood as the technical side.
Many hon. Members will have seen for themselves the many new colleges which have recently been completed in Scotland, or which are now under construction. The numbers of both full-time and day-release students have been rising steadily by about 10 per cent. each year. I hope and believe that as the new places become available and as the opportunities are more widely understood, we shall go faster, because we still have a long way to go. The measures which are being taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour under the new industrial Training Act should do much in the next few years to ensure that the arrangements for the education and training of skilled workers match the growing needs of Scottish industry and commerce. In particular, I expect that day-release will increase much more rapidly as a result of the work of the Industrial Training Boards, some of which are holding their first meetings this week.
To achieve this expansion, we must ensure that both teachers and buildings will be available. I am glad to say that the new arrangements, which were introduced a year ago, for training further education teachers by means of a combined pre-service and in-service course extending over a year, have proved very successful. I have now asked the Committee on Supply and Training of Further Education Teachers to consider what further provision should be made.
I referred earlier to the building programme for further education. It will ensure not only that we can take in a much greater number of students than at present but that they will have facilities of a much higher standard than was previously available. Any hon. Member who has visited one of the new colleges will have heard that their attractiveness and equipment are far more effective than any other form of publicity in gaining support for technical and commercial education.
The colleges now under construction or being planned will give us in a few years' time about double the present number of places for students. Indeed, some of the newly opened colleges, which were expected to meet local needs for some years ahead, are already under pressure, and plans are being made to relieve them. By and large, however, the provision of new accommodation has so far matched the increasing demand, and we shall try to maintain this position.
Not only are new colleges opening but a great variety of new courses are being provided, both full-time and part-time. Many courses have been revised so as to provide ladders to the top at every level of skill. The Brunton Report drew attention to the need to give further information, both to industry and to the secondary schools, about the wide variety of courses now available. In about a week's time I am publishing a new Directory of Day Courses in Further Education which I hope will provide useful guidance for a great many young people in fitting themselves for their chosen career.
I would like, finally, to take this opportunity to say a word about the criticisms that have been made from the Scottish point of view about the Ministerial arrangements for higher education. I recognise that it is vital to education in Scotland that there should be continuity between the schools and the various institutions of higher education, including the universities. In all matters of common interest closer working relationships must be developed. The argument may be that these things would be easier if I and my Department were directly concerned with the Scottish universities as well as the schools.
If that were so, it would mean a division of responsibility for the universities. There seems to be general agreement with the Robbins Committee's view that the Grants Commission principle should be maintained—that we should not have a central Department dealing directly with each university. It follows that if we were to meet the critics and to separate the Scottish universities, we should have to have a special Grants Commission for Scotland, or, at any rate, the Grants Commission would have to advise me rather than the Secretary of State for Education and Science about the Scottish universities.
The Scottish universities themselves, through their principals, made it very clear to us that they would view with concern any arrangement which involved their being dealt with separately from universities in England and Wales. They have close ties which they are anxious to preserve, and they greatly value their relationship with the present Grants Committee. It is difficult to believe that the best way of ensuring continuity between the schools and the universities would be to take a step which meant, for the universities themselves, the breaking up of established associations.
I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite like to take part in the debate by shouting out remarks while sitting down. I have been listening quite carefully to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and other hon. Gentlemen.
The other alternative to what has been done would be to transfer the responsibility for Scottish schools to my right hon. and learned Friend as Secretary of State for Education and Science. I assume that no hon. Member would suggest that. If neither of these alternatives commends itself, there remains, I think, only the course we have in fact taken, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained in his statement on 6th February and subsequently in his answer to the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire on 17th March. I am sure that we have adopted the best course in the circumstances. It would be quite wrong to think that the relationships between the universities and the schools can be strengthened only by Government, or, indeed, that this is the best way to strengthen them. We shall continue to help where we can, as we have been doing, and I see nothing in the new arrangements for Ministerial responsibility that need hinder these efforts.
It must also not be forgotten that the function of a university is not simply to teach but to advance the frontier of knowledge by carrying out research. From this point of view, the arrangements for universities throughout Great Britain must be associated with the treatment of research in other areas, such as the Medical and Agricultural Research Councils. The development of civil science, both in the universities and elsewhere, must clearly be considered for Great Britain as a whole, and this is reflected in the present arrangements.
There are other topics which I would like to have touched on, had there been time. I believe that we all recognise, on both sides of the Committee, the importance of education both for the national economy and for our way of life.
I would like to commend the hon. Member on the fact that he at least stands up before he makes an intervention. My noble Friend heard, I am sure, his comment. It was exactly the same point as that made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North.
We all know that we need more new buildings, more teachers, more teaching aids, more research, more courses and new teaching methods. Hon. Members will no doubt make many points of this kind in the debate, but if this is to be a constructive debate, then I think that we all have a duty to say not only what ought to be done but to indicate how it might be done.
For example, as I said to the hon. Lady, I would welcome constructive ideas as to how the supply of trained teachers can be expanded even more rapidly or how it can be better deployed. Teaching will, we hope, take its full share of the increasing numbers of pupils leaving school and able to benefit from higher education. But any very rapid expansion would mean that we must somehow divert people—graduates or non-graduates—from some other fields of employment which are alternatives for them. We are, for example, acutely short of mathematics teachers. Do we want to divert people with a mathematical training from industry or from research or from university teaching in order to have more in the schools?
Whatever we may say about policies and programmes, we really have to come down in the long run to the sheer human effort—in skill and labour—that is needed. It is easy to say, too, that we should spend more money, without, of course, saying whether there should be more on taxes or on the rates. But on education most of our expenditure goes, and is always likely to go, on salaries. It obviously makes no difference to the pattern of employment if everybody's salary goes up. If anybody argues that we should raise teachers' salaries, perhaps he will name the occupation—the competing occupation—whose salary is not to be raised. I have yet to hear anyone say what these occupations are.
I am not for a moment arguing that nothing can be done to reduce the various shortages further. Much has already been done and a good deal more can be done on the same lines. As I said, I would welcome suggestions as to how we can use our resources better or increase them in these fields where, as so often, they are very scarce.
I hope that the House will realise from what I have said just how much has been achieved in the last four years and how much promise there is today for the future in the developments which are now going forward.
The Committee has just listened to a most disappointing, discouraging and complacent speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, which has failed to meet the challenge of education in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the annual stocktaking debate. All I can say is that the stocktaking so far has revealed the bare shelves of Tory policy in respect of Scottish education.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that the pupil-teacher ratio of 24 pupils per teacher was the best so far. I propose to deal with this subject later on. However, the right hon. Gentleman made a contradiction in his speech, because earlier he said that the shortage of teachers in secondary schools and so on was not so much of teachers of mathematics out of teachers of the practical subjects. Then, towards the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was a shortage of mathematics teachers, and I think that all local education authorities will agree that that is their experience. He also made reference to the accusations of a stop-and-go policy, but that is exactly what has been happening in the last 13 years. I was a member of a local education authority before I came to this House. I can well recall, as many hon. Friends can, the various circulars which emanated from the Scottish Department telling us to go ahead with expansion and the modernising of old schools. Then, no sooner were the plans on paper than another circular would come telling us that we could not go ahead.
I am pleased to see that the Prime Minister is again with us. He spent a few minutes in the Committee earlier this afternoon. I understand from the Press that he is to have a night out on his birthday at the Duchess Theatre to see his brother's play, "The Reluctant Peer". I hope that he will have some sympathy for the reluctant Ministers whom he leaves behind.
When discussing the subject of education, one wonders—to use the modern jargon—whether the Government are really "with it". The difficulties on the educational scene have not suddenly emerged. They were foreseen by everyone but the Government for many years. This is despite the fact that there have never been so many committees and working parties advising the Secretary of State as there have been during the last few years. If the Government have excelled in anything, it must be in their high productivity rate in setting up advisory panels and committees and, not in producing schools or teachers.
The Report on Education in Scotland, 1963, is of little improvement on the Report for 1961, which we debated two years ago. Lack of financial provision by the Government is largely at the root of the troubles in education. While we have the usual moaners about unnecessary frills in education, the Government blithely offer £4½ million too much to Ferranti. This is just chickenfeed compared with the hundreds of millions which the Government squandered on Blue Streak and other misguided missiles. After 13 years of Government mismanagement, we read in the Report that there are no fewer than 58 classes in Scottish primary schools with more than 50 pupils. That is ten more than last year.
How can the Government claim that there is equality of opportunity with classes of that size? Although the number of those on the secondary school roll has fallen by 5,729 pupils in the last year, there are still 1,159 oversized classes in secondary schools. That figure is still far too high. It could have been brought down by vigorous action by the Government. It represents about 8 per cent. of all the classes in secondary schools. On reading this section of the Report one senses a degree of complacency in the Government about this distressing position which obtains after 13 years of Tory rule in this so-called affluent society. The Report in some parts certainly smacks of the Tory materialistic doctrine, "'I'm all right Jack'. I can afford to buy my children a good education, which should be the birthright of every Scottish child".
What are the reasons for oversized classes'? Shortage of buildings is one, but shortage of qualified teachers is another. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) touched on that. So far the Government have played around with this question in their painfully weak attempts to find a solution. On 7th November, 1960, the previous Secretary of State, the former right hon. Member for Renfrew, West, said:
From what my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate and what I propose to say, it will be seen that the Government have an intense sense of urgency about the education programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1960; Vol. 629, c. 773.]
If the position we find ourselves in today is the result of three-and-a-half years intense urgency by the Government, I am certain that the majority of Scots will make sure in October that we shall be spared another term of weak, ineffective Tory rule.
In dealing with the staffing crisis in secondary schools, the Government have failed to recognise the extreme urgency of the problem. How can education authorities expect to attract qualified people to teaching when teachers have to wait, 10, 12 and sometimes 14 years before reaching maximum salary? Earlier the right hon. Gentleman said that everyone seemed reasonably happy with salaries, although no one is ever content. It is this long waiting before getting to the maximum which is one of the difficulties in the situation. A little extra money, which I am sure the Government could well afford if they did not squander so much, could reduce the incremental period, particularly in faculties where there is a tremendous shortage of teachers. No wonder that graduates are attracted to industry where maximum salaries are paid much sooner, to say nothing of the perquisites attached to jobs, such as houses, cars and expense allowances.
Another improvement which might induce more graduates to go into teaching would be effected by paying them something approaching a teacher's starting salary while in the teacher training college. It has been suggested that if grants of the standard given to the D.S.I.R. were awarded that would be an attraction. Once a person has decided to take up teaching, every possible encouragement should be given to him. He should not be dependent on a grant but should have payment in lieu of salary. That would attract many more to the training colleges. A more imaginative realistic course of training for graduates would assist in removing one of the niggling factors which militate against recruitment of graduates. Many people have criticised the waste of time and the methods which are used in the training colleges. All these things should be looked into.
More retired teachers could be attracted back to the profession if, as was recommended by the Knox Committee, such teachers had full pay and pension. From an Answer I received to a Question I asked yesterday, I find that in 1961 284 retired teachers were in the schools and in 1963 that number had fallen to 219. It may be that the supply had diminished, but I am sure that if something could be done on the lines of the Knox Committee Report we would have a greater number coming back. Mathematics and science teachers are already in short supply, and almost 60 per cent. of them will be retiring between 1972 and 1976 at a time when the secondary departments will need them in even greater numbers with the raising of the school leaving age.
The only reason which so far the Government have given for not accepting the recommendation for full pay and pension was that it conflicted with a fundamental principle. Paragraph 6 of the Report says:
Yet the Government themselves departed from this principle when it was necessary under
conditions of crisis to augment the police force during war. We consider that the staffing crisis in the schools during the next few years will be sufficiently serious to justify a similar departure from the principle; indeed we suggest that the rejection of this recommendation would be evidence that the Government were not seized of the seriousness and urgency of the need for more teachers in Scotland … Furthermore we consider that the possibility of repercussions outside teaching cannot properly be made the basis of an argument against our recommendation; our recommendation is put forward in order to meet a crisis and where there is no crisis those who have retired would not be employed.
Here is a damning indictment of the Government for not waiving this principle in times of crisis. There has been a crisis in teacher recruitment and there will be one for many years to come. Remember that the Report from which I have quoted was presented to the Secretary of State back in February 1959, but the Government have staggered on blindly hoping that some bright day when they waved their magic wand the teachers would suddenly appear. Or perhaps they do not care. Their record seems to suggest that that is the answer.
If we are ever to be in a position to meet the increasing demand for teachers, we must increase the pool of educated manpower. This is another aspect of the problem with which the Government have failed to deal effectively. I return to the Knox Committee's Report. Paragraph 39 reads:
It is not only families with no strong tradition of higher education which demur at its cost today. The financial incentives, both direct and indirect, have become serious for certain sections of the population who have been traditionally willing to educate their children at considerable personal sacrifice. We suggest that the nation can no longer rely with certainly on a continuation of the self-sacrifice of these parents … This is a danger sign. Every disincentive to higher education should be removed.
It is true that last year the Government increased the miserably low school bursaries when they thought that the election would be in October. But the new school bursaries now in operation are hopelessly inadequate, especially in the sixth year, where the maximum bursary is £100. When the same pupil in a matter of two months becomes a university student, he can qualify for a grant of £240 if he stays at home; if he takes lodgings he can qualify for a grant of £300; and if he lives in a university hall of residence, he will get £320,
all these figures exclusive of fees. In addition, the student has certain other advantages, because with the long vacation he can often find employment to improve his financial position, whereas the sixth year pupil is not able to do so because of the shorter holiday period and is often denied the opportunity to supplement his meagre allowance. This often causes particular hardship for the families of widows and lower income group parents.
Under this Prime Minister the Government have gone about saying, "We wish to modernise Britain". Let the Government set about modernising Britain in a practical way by removing this real grievance and thus increase the teacher potential. Circular No. 562 issued to local education authorities by the Scottish Education Department on 24th June refers to the need for 4,000 extra teachers in 1970 as a result of the raising of the school leaving age. In paragraph 6 we read:
… exceptional measures will be necessary to recruit these teachers. It is the Secretary of State's intention in the first instance to continue and develop the measures already being taken to increase recruitment and to encourage the return of married women to the teaching service.
This paragraph highlights the Government's ineptitude, for their present methods of recruitment, which they say they intend to continue, have proved insufficient to meet the demands of the present. But we read in the same paragraph:
… but sustained effort will be needed on the part of all concerned—including education authorities, colleges of education and the teachers' associations—to secure an effective increase in the numbers engaged on full-time or part-time teaching service".
What does this mean in practical terms? I say that it means nothing. It is pure, unadulterated, bureaucratic waffle. It is the platitudinous verbiage of a ham-fisted Government.
I return once more to the question of the pupil-teacher ratio. On page 16 of the Report on education we read that
There were on the average 23·9 pupils per certificated teacher in the public and grant-aided schools during session 1962–63.
The interesting sentence is the next:
The average is kept down by the large number of small classes in rural schools and in the later years of senior secondary courses".
The Report would perhaps have been a little nearer the truth if it had stated that the inclusion of the direct-grant schools mentioned in the table on page 15 of the Report was a considerable factor in keeping the average down to 23·9. In the next Report perhaps we could have in the table on page 15 the respective figures for public schools, direct-grant schools and private or independent schools, as they are sometimes called. In addition to those figures, perhaps we can also have the financial aid per pupil stated, because at present the statistics in the Report very carefully mask the extent of Government support to direct-grant schools.
On the last occasion that I received information from the right hon. Gentleman's Department I discovered that Dollar Academy had a ratio of 13 pupils per teacher and George Watson's in Edinburgh had a ratio of 10 pupils per teacher. There is no doubt, therefore, that if these figures were deleted from the table on page 15, the considerably higher ratio of pupils per teacher in local authority schools would be seen more clearly. It is a lot of poppycock to say that it is purely the small classes in rural areas and the top classes in the senior secondary schools which are helping to keep this figure down. It is the direct-grant schools, included in the table, which are largely responsible for this.
I object strongly to the more favoured treatment given to the direct-grant schools in the form of financial assistance. Two years ago the Edinburgh Group of Merchant Schools received a grant equal to £72 per pupil. Dollar Academy received £76 per pupil. The local authority schools in Scotland received the miserable sum of £36 per pupil. Yet the direct-grant schools are regarded as charitable institutions and are thus relieved to some extent from paying their rates, too. With all this Government assistance these direct-grant schools are therefore in a very much better position to maintain the satisfactory pupil-teacher ratios which I have given. All this is at the expense and disadvantage of local authority schools.
I turn to the question of school building. It was only last week that the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State, answering one of the questions which had been put to her, said that she was proud to proclaim that on 31st March about £44·9 million of schoolbuilding was in progress. This was a considerable advance over £36 million at the end of December, 1963. Yet the Fife Education Authority had to make the strongest possible protests to the Secretary of State for Scotland only last December to be allowed to proceed with its school-building programme. Great play is continually made by the right hon. Gentleman that no local authorities are ever prevented from going ahead with their programme, but it was only after a deputation had been to see him in London and after considerable pressure that the Secretary of State relented and allowed them to proceed with the programme. One of the schools concerned was in Glenrothes, and because this new town is the brain-child of the Government they could not prevent the authority from proceeding with that building. We are entitled to know whether this was a deliberate hold-up of building of schools before March this year in order to provide the Tory Party with some election propaganda.
In 1961 the Estimates Committee was investigating school building, and the Scottish Education Department on that occasion told the Committee that about 1,200 of the schools in Scotland were more than 80 years old. That was three years ago. I wonder how many of them have been closed in the interval. I also wonder whether the Secretary of State knows how many Scottish schools have outmoded lavatories outside the main buildings of the schools, where the lavatories are primitive and unheated and where there is no hot water available even in the main school buildings. How many schools are like that?
No doubt many such schools received the leaflet which the right hon. Gentleman issued during the typhoid epidemic encouraging everyone to wash their hands. Therefore, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman has been lax in trying to prevent typhoid epidemics by not encouraging authorities to do away with insanitary conditions in Scottish schools. To my mind, it is a tremendous indictment of the Tory affluent society that it cannot even afford to modernise buildings at a time when there has been a sufficiency of labour and materials. They always hark back to 1945–51 when great difficulties were in the way of the Labour Government, but the Tories have no excuse for not dealing with this problem.
In dealing with school building to meet the raising of the school leaving age in 1970, this famous Circular 562 says this in paragraph 9:
Allowance will be made in the building programmes in 1967–68 and subsequent years, if not before, for the additional accommodation shown to be available for the raising of the leaving age in 1970–71.
Does this mean that authorities should be in a position to commence building in 1967, or just to submit plans in 19671 If it means the latter, it will be too late for the raising of the age in 1970, because it takes two years from the time the calculation of the size of the building is made until the first brick is laid. So I ask the Under-Secretary to clear up this point when she replies.
There is an impression abroad in Scotland that not enough experimentation in education is being carried out by Scottish local authorities. I should, therefore, like to make a personal reference to some attempts which are being made to improve the present organisation in education. The promotion of children from primary to secondary education has been one of the pressing problems in recent years. There are the advocates for the abolition of the promotion test and the advocates for comprehensive schools. There are others who say that comprehensive schools would destroy the many excellent senior secondary schools which we have. This is the debate which took place in the Chamber last night—grammar schools versus comprehensive schools. I do not wish to enter into the aspect which was discussed last night, except to say that the allegation that the comprehensive school will destroy the grammar school is completely without foundation and certain authorities in Scotland have proved that this need not arise.
The promotion difficulties in Fife have been well nigh eliminated by transferring all—I ask hon. Members to note the word "all"—primary school children in a given school area between the ages of 11 years and 9 months and 12 years and 3 months to a junior high school. At the end of two years in the junior high school, and without any special examination, all the pupils who can profit from the more academic type of course then transfer to the high school, while all those pupils remaining in the junior high school pro- ceed to "O" level courses or work-based courses, as desired.
This method has the advantage of a more economical use of qualified teaching staff and a greater opportunity for the pupils. It has been most successful in eliminating the worst feature of the 11-plus examination—that is, the educational snobbery of the parents under the old system.
Page 39 of the Report says this:
In April an experiment in closed circuit television using microwave transmission was carried out in Glasgow under the auspices of the Education Authority: the experiment underlined the potential value of developments in this field and showed that programmes of high technical quality could be transmitted in closed circuit.
I was pleased that the right hon. Gentleman referred to this. I very much welcome this step forward which has been taken by Glasgow Education Committee. It should be noted that Kidbrooke Comprehensive School on the outskirts of London also has a closed circuit television system installed.
Instead of listening to the praises being offered to English schools, some of my Scottish hon. Friends should concern themselves with Scottish schools. No closed circuit television educational scheme at £4,000 is worth the money spent on it. The city of Glasgow is spending no less than £25,000 so that we can get some educational return from what we consider to be a useful adjunct in the existing circumstances of teacher shortage.
If my hon. Friend is making comparisons, he should compare like with like. The scheme envisaged in Glasgow is one which uses a multiplicity of schools. The closed circuit television systems applied in Kidbrooke and Queen Anne School, Dunfermline, deal with one department only and are much more effective.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was about to make the additional point that in the Kidbrooke experiment they are linked to a training college. Perhaps in next year's Report we might have a reference to the Fife experiment in closed circuit television, because it is somewhat different from the Kidbrooke and Glasgow experiments.
They have installed a system in the Fife school of full pupil participation in the television lesson. The lesson is given in four class-rooms simultaneously, and any pupil can put a question to the teacher on the screen at any time without rising from his or her desk. All the children in the four classes hear the question, and obviously hear the answer. To my mind, this is a great advance on the more passive acceptance of information from the national network of schools television programmes, of which the Glasgow experiment is really an extension. Closed circuit television has the advantage of having the knowledge and experience of all the teachers in the department concerned pooled in the preparation of the television lesson, and this has proved to be an enormous improvement on normal teaching methods.
Finally, I should like to refer to a teachers' re-education centre which has been set up and is proving to be extremely valuable. A course on the "New Outlook on Primary Education", which ran for one evening per week for ten weeks, was attended by no fewer than 500 Fife teachers. A new mathematics course, which was given in the same centre, attracted no fewer than 88 honours and ordinary graduates. This is an indication of the interest teachers have in education and shows that they are not merely concerned with the mercenary aspect—their salaries.
This centre, I understand, was not exactly enthused over by the Scottish Education Department when it was first mooted, but I am sure that the Department now appreciates its value and I hope that it will encourage more such schools to be provided throughout Scotland as the frontiers of knowledge move quickly forward.
I have been referring to some of the efforts of local authorities to show initiative in tackling the modern problems of education. The Government, however, have shown no indication that they regard the economic future of this country as being largely dependent on a first class education system, one which provides an education for every child suited to his age, ability and aptitude, and produces the maximum of highly educated manpower capable of holding its own with any nation in the world.
The Government in the past thirteen years have, in my opinion and in the opinion of all my hon. Friends, lamentably failed to meet the challenge in education. I give notice to the Prime Minister that it is only the certain return of a Labour Government in the autumn which will obviate the necessity of some future author writing a book on the "Decline and Fall of Scottish Education under the Tories".
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has really read the Report that we are debating? It is a document which is full of encouraging and exciting facts, a document of which all Scotsmen and Scotswomen may well be proud.
I begin by taking up the two principal points made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs. The first was the teacher training position and the second school building. The number of entrants into the profession is not un-encouraging. In 1961–62, there were 2,778 prospective teachers in training. By the following year, 3,147 had entered training and by 1963–64 the number had increased to 3,674, an increase of 60 per cent. in the last five years. Meanwhile, the total number of graduates entering training was nearly 40 per cent. higher than it was five years ago.
Hon. Members opposite have produced two proposals for dealing with teacher shortage. Each differs in substance materially from what the Government are doing. The first was their ill-fated proposal for half day schooling for five year olds. The Labour Party Study Group, presided over by the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman), produced that idea on 8th May of this year, but it was torpedoed by the party five days later, and sunk without trace.
The second proposal they have produced—and this, too, was probably originated by the hon. Member for Coventry, East, with whom I do not often agree in these matters but with whom, in this case, I feel some sympathy—is that graduates who have benefited from State expenditure for their schooling and university education might make some return by devoting one year, either before or after graduation, to teaching.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East wrote about that idea in The Guardian on 31st May, 1963, when he described it as a "really creative idea" by which graduates should be obliged to undertake a quite new form of what he called "peaceful national service". My hon. Friends and I are always ready to look at good ideas, from whatever source they come, and I urge my right hon. Friend to have a look at this one. It is worth looking at to see to what extent it is administratively practicable.
I have said that the Report we are debating contains some exciting points. There are many of them, but time permits me to mention only a few which particularly appeal to me. The first is about school meals and milk. It is interesting to note that about 40 per cent. of children in Scottish State schools—
The hon. Member had better ask his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East about that. He has suggested that graduates who have benefited from State scholarships and who have gone through State-aided schools, up to universities, might give some return to the State for the benefits they have received from the State; and that that might be in the form of devoting a year to helping out in our schools. I said that it did not seem a bad idea. I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, East on this occasion and I have suggested that my right hon. Friend might look into it.
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the difference between the qualifications for teachers in Scotland and those in England? He referred to graduates helping out in schools either a year before or after graduation. Does he realise that in Scotland, at least for men, they must all be graduates and all be trained?
In that case let us get them a year after graduation in Scotland. I merely said that it seemed an idea worth looking at.
We must all be encouraged to find that about 40 per cent. of the children in Scottish schools now take mid-day meals in school, while nearly 90 per cent. take school milk. Another fact one gleans from the Report is that the provision of kitchens is now sufficient to provide meals for 54 per cent. of the number of children on the school rolls.
I asked a Question of my right hon. Friend the other day about children staying longer at school after the age of 15. It has been encouraging to learn that as recently as 15th January this year 66,000 children aged 15 and over were in our schools, and that, of these, 12,400 were 17 and over, twice as many as in the corresponding period 10 years ago.
I turn to the second principal point discussed by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, school building. This is increasing and while at 31st December, 1963, £36·2 million was being spent on it, in the same period this year £44·9 million was being devoted to school buildings. That is a good thing, and I recall, among other of my hon. Friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) reminding hon. Members in a debate we had on this subject a year ago that about half our children in Scotland are now studying in virtually new schools.
However, during the next 20 years the load on the building industry generally —and I speak about Great Britain as a whole because I do not have separate figures for Scotland—is likely to increase by 60 per cent., whereas the labour force will increase by only 6 per cent. It follows that if we are to fulfil our commitments in Scotland—in slum clearance and rehousing, hospitals, university expansion, along with the building of schools—industrial building techniques will have to be introduced on a wide scale.
On previous occasions we have spoken about an organisation known as C.L.A.S.P., which is derived from the initials of the Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme. C.L.A.S.P., basically by the use of simplified foundations for buildings and standard parts, has enabled savings to be made of up to 30 per cent. in time and about 8 per cent. in terms of better value for money. Before an organisation can join C.L.A.S.P. as a full member it must commit itself to an annual C.L.A.S.P. programme exceeding £250,000. Some larger authorities, such as Glasgow and Lanarkshire, have been able to commit themselves to that and are full members of the organisation, but a programme of this order is beyond the power of many smaller authorities.
Would it not be possible for the Scottish Education Department to form an association of local education authorities which could itself join C.L.A.S.P., and thus reap the benefits of pooled resources and quantity production which membership of that body makes possible? In a Scottish Estimates debate a year ago, my right hon. Friend said that he was studying industrialised building, and I should like my noble Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us what progress has been made, and what prospect there is of doing something on the lines that I have suggested.
As I know that a number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate I purposely jettison several points, but I want to finish on what is, perhaps, a note of warning. We are holding this debate almost, as it were, under the shadow of a General Election, and I cannot close in the debate on Scottish education without some reference to the threat to independent schools which is contained in the Labour Party document "Signposts for the Sixties". Hon. and right hon. Mem- bers opposite want to integrate what in England is called the public school into a State system. They propose to set up in England and Wales an "educational trust", to consult the schools and advise the Administration how this integration should be done. By contrast, "Signposts for Scotland" states baldly that the educational privilege of fee-paying schools will be ended. There is no nonsense here about prior consultation—no eye-wash about educational trusts. Fee-paying schools in Scotland are to be ended—and that is that.
I doubt whether even the Scottish Labour Party has ever committed itself to a more damaging proposal. Schools like Fettes and Loretto, Glenalmond and Gordonstoun—or, for girls, St. Leonards and St. Bride's—have made a great and distinctive contribution to the character of our Scottish people. Entry to these schools is far from exclusive; their doors are open wide to ability and promise. To seek to extend the scope of entry by scholarship and by bursary would be understandable, but Socialist proposals go far beyond that. Scottish electors would do well to heed the warning that has been given in this regard.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley) does not quite understand the difference between fee-paying schools and the independent schools of which he spoke. In Scotland, there are a few—a very few now—public local authority schools which charge fees. They give privileges for those fees although, for the most part, they are maintained by the public funds. These are entirely different from what the hon. Gentleman calls the independent schools—Fettes, Loretto and the others—which will be dealt with all over the country in the way he has indicated.
It is right that we should congratulate the Prime Minister on what we regard as his happy day. It is the first birthday that he has ever passed as Prime Minister, and it may be the last. He will understand, of course, that in this year we cannot wish him many happy returns in one sense—we hope that it will be a Labour return in October and not many happy returns for the Prime Minister. Personally, however, we wish him every good fortune in those years ahead. I would remind him that Bernard Baruch has said that a person who is old is someone who is 10 years older than oneself, so we can always take comfort and hope from that.
We sometimes get so immersed in figures that we forget that the problem is to see that Scottish children receive a proper education. Sometimes, when teachers who give devoted service—some of them live for their work—discuss these matters, they become quite immersed in their own conditions and problems and forget about the problem of the public and children. It is the business of everyone to solve the problem of providing teachers so as to give every child a full education. Suggestions and proposals so far made will not solve this problem, because we are told that we will still be some thousands of teachers short in 1970. The numbers of children are growing faster than the number of teachers capable of dealing with them.
As I have said before, whenever there is a shortage of labour in any other walk of life the solution is found in improved machinery and methods. All over the place we see new methods being used to overcome labour shortages—what is being done in the banks, for example, and elsewhere, is quite remarkable. Machinery is taking away the drudgery of labour even in the home. The only place where progress seems slow is in education.
I was horrified the other night to hear some university students, discussing their professors, speaking of there being 60, 70 or 80 students in a university class for a whole hour, and not understanding a word the professor said because he talked in such a fashion that he could not be heard. To have this in the modern age is scandalous. I know many professors, and I am sure that they make every word clear, distinct and intelligible, but it is just nonsense and a sheer waste of time to have students listening to professors whom they cannot hear. I understand that in the old days they had to buy the notes of previous students to find out what the lectures were about. If that is happening, it is not modern education—we are living in the age of the Ark.
None of the plans I have heard of is likely to remedy the shortage of teachers, and for some time ahead—perhaps for ever—there will not be enough qualified teachers for the work we would have them do. Machines are being adopted. It is five or six years since I first raised the question of television in the schools, and today we are told that there are now about 700 of these sets. On the other hand, there are 3,200 schools in Scotland. I was very happy to learn of the Glasgow development. I discussed the matter with E.I.S. representatives, who argued that we could not do without the individual teacher and the personal work of the teacher, yet within three or four months of our discussion we hear of this system being adopted there to make up for the shortage of teachers.
We were all interested to learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) of the Fife experiment. I have been in touch with the Minister of Education and know of experiments in England. A great deal of work has been done in America, and in some backward countries, where there are no teachers at all, the children in the outlying villages in the mountain areas are supplied with television sets and taught from a centre.
I repeat that there is something which television can do that no teacher can do. I have seen and heard wonderful leotures on the B.B.C. television programmes. The other day a man lecturing on the eye gave a whole lifetime of experience in the space of one hour. No general teacher could do that because he cannot devote a lifetime to preparing for a lecture. On television all the resources of a man's life are freely available to millions of people. I have suggested previously that these programmes ought not to be wasted on the desert air. Once these lectures are given they disappear forever. They should be recorded on film and be made available to schools and to institutions for further education for use by teachers to help them with their work.
The B.B.C. approached me on this matter, but I was told that it was not the Corporation's business to arrange this. Its business was to produce television programmes, though representatives of the Corporation agreed that this ought to be done and that films should be made available. They said that it was up to the education authorities to get in touch with the B.B.C. and take these facilities from the Corporation and make them available to the schools. They agreed with me that the Film Library in Glasgow was doing wonderful work with still films, which are so valuable for educational purposes, and they said it ought not to be beyond the power of the Education Department to put these lectures on permanent record so that they could be made available to the schools when they were needed.
One of the disadvantages of broadcasts to schools is that they may not be broadcast at a time when the teacher needs that particular lesson. If the broadcast were filmed it could be transmitted on closed circuit so that the schools could use these lessons when they wanted them. This would be much more economical than spending £4,000 to £5,000 on an hour's broadcast. This applies to medical schools, universities and ordinary schools.
A great many people still insist on teaching by methods which were invented in the time of John Knox. We need to bring ourselves up to date and to use modern methods. I hope that the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will give us some information about what is done in training colleges, because encouragement to people to use new methods should start there.
A great deal is heard about the conservatism of people in schools, and, whatever we may claim, no Government can secure reforms in schools without tremendous persistence and hard work. I knew of a case where a young teacher was taught to use the latest methods, but when she went to a school in an outlying district the headmaster said, "Forget all that nonsense you were taught at Moray House. This is how we do it here." I hope that a great deal more effort is made to see that television is made available in schools and to see that everybody has a chance of using it.
Are we falling down in the quality of education? I occasionally look at the Daily Mail and read articles by the Earl of Arran. I understand that this is a popular form of literature among younger people today, but if that is the standard of education reached by these people, heaven knows what happened to them when they were pupils. It is terrible to think that this is the standard that we produce and that people can enjoy that kind of writing. On the other hand, I am encouraged when I hear "Top of the Form" and other discussions on television to find children as bright as ever they were, and probably much more sophisticated and educated than they were in the past. They put on a splended performance. Every day and night we have examples of the vitality and great capacity of youth to tackle their own problems.
There is need to defend youth today. We find the papers portraying youth as a lot of child horrors and we get exaggeration of incidents at Clacton and Brighton. I understand that at Brighton the maximum amount of physical damage to any person was that a lady was pushed aside in a café, and there was £40 of material damage. I saw in a university building watchmen's lanterns, the tops of lamp standards and policemen's helmets kept as trophies. This was supposed to be bright, youthful larking, but if it happens in Clacton it is the work of child horrors and juvenile delinquents. I was glad to hear an hon. Member say recently that he was a juvenile delinquent in his day. If everybody was honest we would all admit to this too.
There is a great deal of exaggeration today and a great need to defend youth. The fact is that there are more children at evening classes any night than there are in dance halls. Many more young people are studying in further education, and there has been a steady increase in the number of children taking evening classes after they have left school. There has been an increase of 25 per cent. in this respect among those aged between 17 and 18. Young people are learning with great keenness and enthusiasm in the apprentice schools to train themselves for their future jobs. I could say a good deal also about the morals of young people. Statistics show that there is a great deal of exaggeration on the subject. All that is really happening is that what was done in secret before is done more openly now, and there is probably not much change in morals.
The Scottish Council for Physical Education shows in its Report that children develop their bodies healthily. They are keen to develop their physique and to achieve success in sport. The achievements of Scottish youth in swimming are remarkable, and generally in various sporting activities the youth of today take a healthy interest in life. We should stop slandering them and should give them every encouragement to go on. The youth of today are not decadent. If there is failure in what comes out of the schools that failure is not in the youth, it is in ourselves. We let the job down.
As I have said, a great deal could be done to improve methods of education. Many of the methods employed today are those of the days of John Knox where pupils are seated at a desk and preached at for hours. It is contrary to nature to keep physically fit youngsters tied to their desks for hours on end. Their energy will out, and unless education provides a way of getting it out in a healthy manner it will come out in an unhealthy way.
We have solved the problem in the nursery schools, and I am sorry that we have not built an adequate number of new nursery schools. However, I am glad to see from the Report that Edinburgh and other authorities are improvising nursery schools. If we could introduce something on the lines of the Montessori system to the later stages of education I think we would solve this problem of the 14 to 15-year-olds who get bored stiff when they are kept sitting still, as it were, in a prison. Some schools have made a remarkable advance towards solving the problem, but I think the education authorities and the Government must take the problem in hand and interest the children in education so that they keep at it without the urge to find outlets for showing off in other directions.
This is one satisfactory aspect of the continuation classes, but it is not everybody who is a bookworm. Some people are more physically active. After all, there is education to be gained from doing things. We abolished the exploitation of children, but there is a great deal to be said for the idea that there should be a greater combination of work and education. Many of us did not realise the value of education until we had left it behind. When we went out into the world we began to realise that it would have been worthwhile having a great deal more education.
It may be that the ideas which I have suggested will not be in time to meet this terrible shortage of teachers. I hope that Glasgow's experiment is successful. Nevertheless, I would rather have a class of 60 pupils than see children not being taught at all. If children have to be sent home from school and miss lessons, the effect will be disastrous. After all, there are people who years ago were taught in classes of 60 and who managed to learn grammar and a few other things. I am certainly in favour of keeping the sizes of classes down, but if that is not possible I would rather they were large than see children not being taught at all.
When children leave school and go out to work there must be more and more opportunities for education. The day release scheme must be developed, and it is far better if this is done as part of the job. The colleges which we have erected, like Napier College and the college in Falkirk, are a great step forward in the provision of technical and further education as a whole. Whatever Government have to finish the job, I wish them well because it will not be an easy task to tackle.
In a debate on a subject such as this it is extremely difficult to be selective. However, before making my few comments I should like to refer to the speech of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and to say how much I agree with his compliment to youth.
We often make the mistake of forgetting that it is, roughly speaking, 98 per cent. of the youth of the country of whom we should be proud and something like 2 per cent. of whom we should be rather more dubious. We should certainly take the opportunity of complimenting the 98 per cent. for the contribution which they make and which I am convinced they will continue to make, probably rather better than we do.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire referred to the shortage of teachers and said that he thinks there will never be a sufficient number of qualified teachers. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) omitted to mention that I wrote a minority Report on the Knox Committee's recommendations, in which I recommended something which was considered to be a suggestion of dilution towards the profession. I can assure hon. Members that I had no intention of suggesting dilution to the profession.
I made the recommendatoin for reasons which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave when he pointed out that many of the 3,000 teaching vacancies in schools today are in secondary schools and that many of those secondary school vacancies are in the field of art, music and home work. It was in this sphere that I believed—and nobody has convinced me to the contrary—that it was possible to recruit along the lines which I recommended in the minority Report to the Knox Committee.
It has been stated that I have said before—which is true—that half the children in Scotland today are being taught in new schools. If half our children are enjoying the privilege of being taught in new schools, there must have been considerable progress in school building. I am not one of those who are concerned about the rate of school building. I think that we have done great things. The fact that half our children are enjoying the result of this progress should be a matter for congratulation of the Government. I also believe that the numbers staying on at school is a matter for congratulation. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North would not accept my point that the question of staying on at school is not merely one of deciding whether a certain amount of money is a suitable bursary. I do not think that she would expect a school bursary to be raised to a level which could in any way be comparable to the amount of money which these young people could earn.
I am glad to hear the hon. Lady say so, but that was the impression she gave me.
The point which I should particularly like to raise today is one which is perhaps more relevant to my constituency and is very important in the context of the industrial development of Scotland. Reference has been made to the question of overspill and the educational problems that it raises. I hope that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take note of what I am saying, not in a spirit of criticism of what has gone wrong in my area but because I think that there is a lesson to be learned from it.
Linwood is perhaps one of the greatest developments that we have had in Scotland. It has also presented the education authorities with one of their greatest challenges. It was estimated that about 2,000 houses would be built at Linwood and that, as a result, there would be an additional school population of 7,500 children. It would be wise to remember that 7,500 children represent rather more children than there are in one-third of the educational areas of Scotland. We are, therefore, dealing with a very special problem comparable in size to the total problem in certain more sparsely populated areas.
This problem of overspill should be studied closely. It relates not only to those areas where there is actual overspill, but also to all those areas of expansion, including London and the South-East. I think that it is true to say that three extra primary schools and two extra secondary schools were required in Linwood to absorb the growing population. These schools should have been built far earlier in the general scheme of things. The lesson to be learned is that we should revise our priorities for building wherever great industrial development takes place.
As well as the schools in Linwood itself, one primary school and one secondary school were required in Barrhead and a further five schools were required in Johnstone. These, of course, are connected with the same development. In terms of staffing, great problems have been created. As I see it, there should be a programme of school building which would put schools on the site ready for use at the same time as houses were placed on the site for occupation.
We are now mid-way through 1964, and we have not caught up with the programme in the Linwood area which was envisaged for 1962. The lesson to be learned from this is that we started too late. Two years is too short a time to make adequate development to meet the situation.
I want no one to imagine that the Rootes factory is unwelcome in the area. Far from it. We welcome all developments like this in Scotland. Since the plant started, 85,000 motor cars—"Imps"—have been made at Linwood. We want the work to go on and we are very happy to realise that in Scotland we have the plant which makes this motor car and will continue to make it there. There is no other comparable plant in the world.
However, as we provide for the social services behind such great industrial development, education must obviously be foremost in our minds in dealing with a community which has grown very rapidly, which is continuing to grow, and which will enjoy in the foreseeable future the benefits of what has been established at Linwood.
Is there not a case for a completely new approach to school building in areas of this kind? In my view, such a new approach would apply not only to the developing centre of Scotland but to all the development areas of England, including the South-East. Should we not consider forming some sort of consortium, following the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley)?
What I have in mind is something on the lines of the Scottish Special Housing Association. Such a body could take these difficulties out of the hands of the hard-pressed local authorities. It will also put the finances on a different and more satisfactory footing. It seems to me, also, that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State might find it easier to command such an organisation than she has found it to handle the various local authorities, with their differing interests, under the present system.
Such a scheme would alleviate the financial difficulties of the counties concerned. As hon. Members opposite have said, where there is an allocation and, in the same area, there is a heavy overspill problem, the allocation for the area does not take fully into account the effect of overspill. If we are to take our overspill, we should take our resources from a central authority, not from the allocation of the county concerned.
To help in teacher supply, it might be easier if conditions for teaching were more acceptable than they were in Linwood at the start of the project. It is difficult to expect teachers to come into a new area, where there is no community spirit, and mould together children from different places who do not even know one another, unless they can do it in reasonably modern and attractive conditions. This is another aspect of the problem which should be tackled far more in advance than was done in the case of Linwood.
I do not wish to detain the Committee, but there are several other points which are much in the minds of people interested in education. First, I refer to the rising success rate in examinations in Scotland.
Before the hon. Lady goes on, may I raise a question on her last proposition, which I found most attractive? Does she suggest that there should be a sort of Scottish Special Education Association which would undertake direct building and which would be provided for by the Treasury through the Scottish Office?
Yes, that is, broadly, my proposition. It would enable the Scottish Office to use—I hesitate to call them such, but I can think of no better term—prefabricated schools of varying design to meet the various needs. Such schools could be put up quickly at moderate cost—again, I have in mind what was said on this point by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns—and they could be of the same design for the same type of area, wherever appropriate.
The tables on pages 120 to 124 of the Report on Education in Scotland show very encouraging examination results, but I wish to draw attention to the disappointing use made by girls of their successes in qualifying. The findings of the working party of the Association of Headmistresses—I realise that it concentrated on a restricted number of girls—show that of the girls who gained five O levels in the G.C.E. 80 per cent. received no more education, and that of the girls who gained two A levels 33 per cent. received no more education. The comparable figures for boys were 39 per cent. and 1 per cent. receiving no more education. Here is a huge reserve of educationally qualified manpower, quite unused.
There is good ground for the view either that the curricula are wrong in some respects or that girls are not encouraged in mathematics and science. In an article in the Sunday Telegraph of 28th June, there was a remarkable statement about the lack of girl scientists at Oxford. Presumably Oxford has the pick of the girl scientists of the country. If the existing places cannot be filled, this suggests either that girls are not being diverted into this stream of endeavour, or that teachers are not encouraging girls to go into a field where, according to the article, there is known opportunity.
If we could provide greater flexibility in the curricula and facilitate the possibility of transfer, the situation might be improved. I do not believe—I am sure that constituency correspondence generally bears this out—that it is easy for a child to change from one type of curriculum to another. Nor do I believe that it is sufficiently easy for a child to be transferred from one type of school to another. I shall not weary the Committee by developing this point, but I believe that it is one of the most important of all and it should be gone into much more thoroughly than I have time to do today.
I am sure that the late developers do not get their full chance and that parents would be infinitely happier if they could feel that there was a wider second chance than there is under our present system. I know that many experiments are going on at present, and I hope that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will refer to some of them, but I feel that here again we waste a great potential.
My greatest fear about raising the school-leaving age, and perhaps raising it so quickly, is the most significant tribute to the work which the Government have done in education over the past 10 years. Unless this opportunity is matched by the programme that is offered to those who remain for the extra year, we shall not give young people the full benefit of that opportunity. There was strong criticism over two or three years that the last raising of the school-leaving age was a complete waste and that children got bored because they had to repeat what they had done in the previous year. In my view, they were not taken out into the world and shown enough of the world which they were about to enter.
I hope that a bold and imaginative plan for the new final year is being devised now, because only by a really significant final year will the wonderful work which is being done to bring about this raising of the school-leaving age give young people the full benefit of this step forward.
I listened very attentively to the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland which, in my opinion, was delivered with a wholly unjustifiable smugness and complacency. While listening to him, I was attempting to assess what effect a speech such as that which he made would have had upon a Glasgow audience. I should like to organise a great demonstration of Glasgow parents, irrespective of political allegiances, and invite the Secretary of State to it to deliver the speech which he delivered this afternoon. I am satisfied that if he gave the opportunity for asking questions he would leave the meeting a very much disillusioned individual.
It is all very well to bandy about in the House of Commons percentages and ratios of teachers to pupils and to talk about the number of additional teachers who have come into the profession. What that audience would ask the Secretary of State would be this: "Can you tell us why we have in the east end of Glasgow 5,000 children in primary schools receiving part-time education for a large number of months?" That is the sort of question which the right hon. Gentleman would be asked. This is how we see our educational problem. Glasgow people are not interested in the fact that the average number of pupils per teacher is 23·4. They know quite well that there is not a school in Glasgow where that average applies. It is no good talking about these fantastic and anaesthetising figures. It will not work. We are concerned with the practical problem as we see it in a large city like Glasgow, which is providing education for a quarter of the children in Scotland.
I welcome the tribute which the Secretary of State paid to the education authority in Glasgow and to the director of education and his band of deputies for the excellent work that they are doing because I do not think that in Scotland or, for that matter, in Great Britain could there be a more dedicated and more enlightened band of people. But, despite that enlightenment and all the methods of ancillary education, such as television, and the inducements which teachers are offered, we are not able to solve the problem of the teacher shortage and the large number of pupils in our classrooms.
Let me remind the Secretary of State of the teaching position in Glasgow. In 1958, we had 6,769 certificated teachers and 128 uncertificated teachers. The number of certificated teachers required to fill our vacancies in 1958 was 941. The deficiency percentage was 12·4. In 1962, we had a smaller number of certificated teachers—6,729—but the number of uncertificated teachers had doubled to 254. The number of certificated teachers required to fill the vacancies had risen from 941 to 1,328 and the percentage deficiency had increased from 12·4 to 16·7. This is the position in Glasgow from a practical angle.
We have spent a lot of time, rightly, this afternoon on the acute and continuing shortage of teachers. I reject the finding of the appointments board that students are not interested in salary scales, because later it contradicts itself by saying that the lack of opportunity for promotion keeps them away from the teaching profession. What else does promotion mean but an increase in salary? I doubt very much whether we would recruit any traffic wardens from London under the special recruitment scheme, because they start with a higher salary than a male graduate in the teaching profession. Surely no one can justify a commencing salary for a male graduate under Chapter IV of £730. That is less than a traffic warden in the City of London gets.
I am glad that the Minister of State for Education and Science is listening. We are in difficulties in Scotland vis-à-vis the situation in England. In England, a male teacher does not require to be three-year trained. Up to a year or so ago he did only two years' training. All these are factors which militate against us paying a reasonable salary. It is a statutory requirement in Scotland that every male teacher must be a graduate. To fix a starting salary such as the one which I have just mentioned is wholly unrealistic if we hope to attract more males into our primary schools, which is where we need them. One reason why we are not getting graduates coming into our teaching profession in competition with industry and commerce is the lowness of the salary.
The Secretary of State for Scotland invited us to make suggestions. I thought of the suggestion box which one finds in some factories and commercial undertakings. If a suggestion picked out of the box would not cost much money, it is adopted, but if it would cost a lot of money it is rejected and thrown in the wastepaper basket.
It is a nice pre-election technique to invite the Opposition to give the Government suggestions—at least there is only one hon. Member present on the Government side to do it. The right hon. Gentleman has, I suppose, invited suggestions from any quarter of the Committee. There is no need to invite suggestions from us at this late hour about how to get additional teachers. You have had any number of Committees, which have given any amount of advice, which you have rejected.
I am sorry, Sir Robert.
I will remind the Secretary of State of one suggestion which has been mentioned here frequently today—the recommendation of the Knox Committee regarding teachers who have retired. We were told that the Secretary of State was quite willing to provide nursery classes to look after the children of married women who returned to teaching. Surely, that would cost money to put into effect. Why, then, reject the scheme proposed by the Knox Committee, which would give the people their salaries and their pensions at the same time? This proposal must have been before our educational leaders time and time again as a ready-made method of at least retaining some people who have experience.
I mentioned the Glasgow figure for a specific purpose because of what I consider to be—I say it in a friendly way—the cowardly action of the Secretary of State in running away from the recommendation which he himself was prepared to put forward, that in view of the difficulties of the staffing situation in the City of Glasgow he was prepared to accept the recommendation of the National Joint Council that £50 be awarded as a special allowance to those serving in the city.
Fifty pounds was the sum that was paid to teachers in Glasgow way back in 1932. If we were realistic, and if £50 was merited in those days, we would say that, at the least, the figure should be £250. Having accepted that recommendation, however, the Secretary of State for Scotland ran away from it as soon as other authorities complained that it might result in a drain upon their teaching service. I would not complain about the drain; Glasgow has enough to complain about. If we study the figures under the voluntary recruitment scheme, we find that there has been a progressive decline in the number of teachers which Glasgow has attracted from among those who leave the colleges of education. Surely, by virtue of the small numbers coming into its service, Glasgow has established that she is entitled to a weighting allowance to induce people to come her way and into her service.
For the very reasons that the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) indicated, we have special problems, just as the hon. Lady has in Linwood, affecting our teachers—for example, the distances which they have to travel and the considerable slum-clearance problem which the local authority is not permitted to carry out. In Glasgow we still have to pay £¼ million in transporting pupils to old slum schools because we do not yet have permission from the Scottish Education Department to erect new schools for them, as the hon. Lady has asked should be done for part of her constituency at Linwood.
Therefore, we in Glasgow feel that despite the subsequent finding of the National Joint Council, the Secretary of State should have stuck to his guns and not watered down his proposal to something which seems stupid. Whoever else would have thought of setting teachers in one school against teachers in another, or teachers in the same school against each other, by being prepared to award £50 to teachers in one classroom but denying it to others? This was the most stupid thing; that anybody could devise. I would have resolutely opposed such a scheme which distinguished between one school and another and between one teacher and another in a school in Glasgow.
The final decision rests with the Secretary of State. He should have had the courage to say that he would recognise these difficulties and, despite the recommendation of the National Joint Council and the fact that a working committee has been set up to examine the situation, to say, as the teachers in Glasgow expect him to say, that he will accept the recommendation and give them something for the not inconsiderable difficulties confronting them in the city vis-à-vis other parts of the country. The Secretary of State knows quite well that already there are discriminatory and additional payments in areas where it is difficult to get teachers.
My next point concerns the niggardly contribution made by the Scottish Education Department towards adult education. If the children are suffering as they are in Glasgow and, I presume, elsewhere from inefficiency due to teacher shortage and part-time education in their formal years of instruction at school, we should compensate them somehow by providing them with adequate facilities when they grow up if they desire adult education. I was amazed when I learned from a Written Answer that the amount which was contributed last year by the Scottish Education Department to adult education in Scotland was the miserable sum of £13,000 out of a total expenditure in Scotland of £65,000. When we think of Newbattle Abbey and the valuable work that is being done there, and the great shortage of funds which it suffers in wanting to expand and develop as it urgently needs to do, one hopes that the Secretary of State for Scotland will look again at the contribution from the Scottish Education Department to adult education.
I subscribe wholeheartedly to the view expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East in referring to the type of curriculum which we should be thinking of for the pupil who is to remain at school for an additional year from 1970 onwards. I agree that one of the greatest challenges to our educational system over the past two decades concerns the curriculum provided for the junior secondary school. I confess that we have not mastered that problem. Even with the working parties and the co-operation of teachers, directors of education and people from the Scottish Education Department, we have not so far been able to devise a curriculum which would wholly induce pupils from 14 to 15 years of age in our junior secondary schools to feel that they are benefiting from that year's education.
Therefore, having some knowledge of what we have been able to provide and to achieve in residential school accommodation, I suggest that we should conduct a pilot experiment in residential education for pupils in their final year's school from the age of 14 to 15. We could not do it for everyone, because, unfortunately, two out of three of our pupils in Scotland are in the junior secondary school category. We could then see how the scheme developed later at the ages of 15 and 16. Let the pupils go there for 12 months at least.
In Glasgow we have done remarkable work with short-term residential education. The teachers praise the system. They tell us that in the residential period at school they are able to recognise facets in a pupil which would never have been detected had the pupil been sitting at a desk for as long as 20 years.
Related to the great need of an educated democracy, upon which the prosperity and future of Scotland depends, we should try to instil into pupils in that type of education in their final year at school a spirit of communal understand and an ability to live with each other and to stimulate in them an interest in other than the formal type of education which they receive in the classroom, not wholly abandoning it but bringing them into contact with their fellow beings for, say, a year's residential education.
I feel certain that a scheme along the lines of that final year in a residential school would be the answer to the problem of junior secondary education which has eluded us so far. One would like to see a pilot scheme started now. Even with a pilot scheme going, a working party could be set up to ascertain how far it would be feasible, practicable and desirable for such a scheme to be rapidly expanded to cover the whole of the Scottish school population for that final year.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) was no doubt right when he began to pose the difficulties of Glasgow and his part of the world, but he was less than fair to the Secretary of State in trying to suggest that they were common to education in Scotland. I am certain that the fact that there are difficulties and black spots points to the success achieved in certain fields, but it certainly highlights the fact that there is further work to be done.
I was more in accord with the hon. Member in the closing part of his speech. One knows from the experiment carried out by a headmaster in Fife in taking his pupils away from the classroom and living with them how much impetus one can give and how much one can discover of talents in children which in the ordinary classroom one never knew existed.
While we have very much brought the debate down to accommodation and teachers, I think that one is unfair to the Secretary of State if one gives the impression that educational building in Scotland has been suffering from a stop-go policy. I know that education authorities in my county have had difficulties over their education programmes, but, by and large, with co-operation, those have been overcome.
As has been said, it was only two years ago that we met the situation where education authorities began to find themselves short of money. One of the changes that came about at that time was that the Education Department in Edinburgh tried to relate more closely the amount of work which was being estimated for by education authorities and what was within their power to do. Before that time there were many instances where authorities had put forward estimates far in excess of the work that could actually be done. Very real problems were encountered in this sphere, because when one begins building schools in new town areas, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) described, by introducing one more school into a year's programme one can add up to £500,000, perhaps a quarter of the total amount, through the introduction of that one effort.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East suggested that that type of school might be built through an agency typified by the Scottish Special Housing Association. I know that there is real fear in counties where new towns are being built that an unfair proportion of the money available has to go to the new areas because these are areas which can be catered for only by the building of a new school. There is no old school to be brought up to date. One has to start from scratch or do nothing. There is real need to make certain that the new town areas do not prejudice the modernisation and extension of schools elsewhere in the authority's area which have been in existence perhaps for hundreds of years.
The same problem exists in university building. I was pleased that my right hon. Friend said that we are now trying to work a three-year period forward. The same problem exists in connection with capital grants for universities. The universities know that their current grant is based on a quinquennial allocation. There is real need to have a quinquennial programme for the capital expenditure of universities. In the case of St. Andrews, it appears that in May grants were intimated for capital expenditure up to March, 1966. It would be a very great help if the figure up to March, 1968, could be given to make certain that the planned expansion of the university can continue. It now amounts to 3,200 places and will build up to 4,800 places in 1967.
It would also be helpful if the capital grants could be dealt with by the same forward planning method, not necessarily for a certain university but for the universities as a whole, so that the plan could be fitted in to ensure that the required number of student places can be provided. Our plans to increase the number of students in universities will fail if enough student places are not made available.
I welcome very much the fact that during this year we have had an announcement that a further university is to be built in Scotland. The exact location of it is, I suppose, sub judice with the University Grants Committee. However, if we think of the types of place to which the oldest university went, we find that they did not of necessity go to the places which were at the time the most populous, and I do not think that it has ever been shown that they have in any way been hindered in their development as seats of learning by the fact that they were not located in capital cities. I trust that this point will be taken fully into account when the location of the new university is eventually decided.
When we have been talking about the shortage of teachers, we have also always had in mind not only the fact that it is a problem which we know exists and which we face today, but the fact that there is to be a raising of the school-leaving age which will accentuate the difficulty. Also, it should be borne in mind that at present there is a rise in the number of students in primary and secondary schools, and that the forecast is that the figure will rise from 907,000 last year to 912,000 by 1965, and that by 1975, without the raising of the school-leaving age, the school population will be over the one million mark.
This emphasises the very real need, mentioned by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and others, to use the very latest and best methods to overcome any deficiency in teaching staff which we know exists and which in many ways, because we know that there is a shortage of skilled men in almost every trade, we cannot help feeling will remain in spite of the efforts that are being made.
When reading page 18 of the Report, which deals with teaching methods and how much stems from the actual work of teachers themselves, I was struck by the phrase:
New and refreshing experiments are being tried, more frequently than at almost any time in the past".
I will not bother to quote any more from the Report, because hon. Members can read it. It seems a pity that we have not taken the necessary steps to make it obligatory for education authorities to have teachers on their education committees. If we are to create the interest and the extra impetus that we need we must consider the present composition of our education committees.
I know that many people on education committees are dedicated to their work, but these are large committees, and many of those serving on them find that they are out of their depth when they try to do the work. They would welcome a greater degree of co-option of people who could give specialist advice, to make certain that proper use was made of all the aids to teaching which many hon. Members have described.
If we are to make progress in this matter, when we consider such matters as the teaching of languages by new methods we must remember that unless, at the same time, we alter examination standards, and the methods by which people are examined, we shall not be able to make full use of the new techniques of teaching. The way in which people are taught will not enable them to answer the questions in the prescribed way. If we are to take advantage of new teaching methods we must also be prepared to consider the types of examination we set and the way in which people are tested at the end of the day.
Naturally, the biggest problems arise in our cities and large centres of population, but we must remember that a great deal of good work has been done in our village schools. When I read of village schools being closed down I wonder whether we could not give thought to the possibility of finding a few volunteer teachers to go to those schools, rather than move the people who are left on the school roll into a populous centre. If that were done some of the schools which would otherwise have begun to fall below the required level of pupils could easily be kept up to the correct level, so that in three, four or five years' time the natural growth of population and an increase in the number of people living on the farms might easily result in such schools being able to re- turn to a full-time one-teacher or two-teacher establishment.
Few of us have paid sufficient attention to the question of education. The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire was right to pay tribute to the majority of our young people. We know from the number who wish to take part in such organisations as Voluntary Service Overseas that more young people than ever are offering to do practical things. The difficulty is that insufficient opportunities are provided for them. We shall do a great deal to help the furtherance of education if we think in terms of trying to provide better jobs and better spare-time facilities for pupils in their last years at school.
Listening to a wireless programme the other day I heard a headmaster say that when the announcement about the raising of the school-leaving age was made a number of pupils were disturbed, and their efforts in class fell off—although the announcement was in respect of something that would not happen until four, five or six years after those pupils had left school. The announcement had a depressing effect upon them. They felt that it meant another year's grind. Between now and the time when the extra year comes into force we must meet the challenge and make certain that we provide the necessary opportunities and create an atmosphere in which pupils will wish to stay on for their extra year, and will regard it not as a chore but as something which will help to fit them for later life.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). I would like to have pursued a number of the points which he raised in connection with such matters as the representation of teachers on education committees, which is a very contentious point. I would be inclined to agree rather than disagree with him about the necessity completely to change the examination system as we bring in new teaching methods.
Since many other hon. Members wish to speak, however, I shall confine my remarks to a more specific point, which has been touched on by one or two hon. Members. I agree that such questions as the shortage of teachers and school buildings, and specialisation in the curricula of schools, are of vital importance, but I want to talk about the rôle of the junior secondary schools in Scottish education.
Almost every country has come to the conclusion that its greatest natural resources are its people. Even those countries which have a tremendous amount of physical natural resources have realised that if they are to compete in the modern world they must use to the full the ability of their people. Only then can they use their natural resources economically and efficiently.
It is no longer possible, as it was 50 years ago or even more recently, to run an undertaking with one literate manager who is highly educated and knows the technology of his industry, supervising gangs of work horses who do not need to be educated but are merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. That situation has changed very rapidly in recent years. Last week I was in a mine in Nottingham, and I found its technology quite staggering. The coal-cutting machine—the main part of which was made in Scotland—was something which could no longer be looked after merely by an ordinary technician. It needed very complicated workshops.
We have reached the stage where, even in respect of one great scientific endeavour—such as the building of the Concord or the TSR.2, or the building of a single plant, such as a petrochemical plant—we probably use more technicians than were available for the whole of our technology 30 or 40 years ago. We must realise this. We must have many more people at all levels of technology than we have at the moment.
I hope that I shall not appear to be digressing too far if I say that when the Russians launched their sputnik what staggered me was not the fact that they probably had captured one or two German scientists—I realise that they did receive enormous help from them—but that technology in Russia was more sophisticated than we had ever thought possible. It meant that they had teams to produce the guiding mechanism and the instrumentation and the craftsmen or draftsmen who designed everything down to the coupling for the fuel hoses. This was an indication to me that this was not merely a small, isolated pocket of technology, but that it had a sophisticated industry behind it.
We were not surprised at the activities of the Americans. We know that for 30 or 40 years they have been building up their technical colleges and universities until a point was reached when many of the older European universities tended to sneer and considered that the Americans were going over the mark; that the American degree was not quite the thing. But during the last World War and the Korean War the results achieved by American technology showed how wise the Americans had been and how fundamental was their programme of educating large masses of people. From them a lot of "cream" was skimmed off.
What has been done by the Americans and the Russians we must do, but in Britain we have many important steps to take. There are still far too many barriers. The children about whom I am concerned represent 70 per cent. of the school population. Until now, and particularly in Scotland, the lad of parts has been able to batter his way to the top through the universities because of the particularly good system which exists in Scotland and which enables the bright boy to get through.
However, we are reaching the end of the supply of very bright boys from the working classes. The machinery is there already to provide them with an opportunity. No longer can we rely on recruiting from the old areas from which the universities have previously drawn their students. That intake comes very largely from the middle-class areas. We have gone sufficiently far in that direction. In fact, some people at the universities are convinced that we have gone too far and that too many middle-class children have been pushed through. To this some university people attribute the comparatively high failure rate in the first year of the Scottish universities.
The Report of the Robbins Committee shows that far too few children from unskilled, semi-skilled and even skilled workers' families are given a chance of higher education. I do not believe that we can afford to allow the figures revealed by Robbins to continue without alteration. We must find a great deal more talent than we have got from this 70 per cent. in the past. A significant increase in the entrants to universities must come from groups of the community where there is no academic or professional ancestry. That is the big problem which faces us. We cannot afford to wait for the bright children to push their way through. We have to start to dig for them.
On Tuesday, I presided at the prize-giving at a junior secondary school in the East End of Glasgow I refuse to believe that children from that school, particularly those who received prizes, would all have been denied the opportunity of higher education had they lived in the better, middle-class districts on the West side of Glasgow. What chance had these children had? In a school where there is a staff of 36 teachers there have been 14 changes in one year and another five teachers will be leaving at the end of the term. That is typical of what happens in junior secondary schools, and it is true of the type of schooling which these children have had since they commenced school at the age of five.
The turnover in staff in these schools, which are classed as poorer schools, is much higher than that in the schools of the West End and certain parts on the other side of Glasgow. There are many reasons for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) referred to geographical reasons. The area which he represents is hit particularly hardly in this respect. It is a long distance from where it is traditional for teachers in Glasgow to live. There is a teacher shortage, and most of the teachers live in different areas. This makes education administrators desperate, and when someone is prepared to teach in a school in the East End the administrators are chary of imposing too many conditions in case they lose the services of a potential teacher.
We must re-examine the whole question of extra payments for teachers. That has been referred to today. We must examine it not merely in terms of Glasgow as a whole but from the point of view of each school or area. We must consider also the question of money. Few teachers will be attracted by a sum of £50 a year, when they take into consideration such things as additional transport costs. In terms of money we must think more imaginatively.
Perhaps even more important is the need to re-examine the whole quota system. That may prove unpopular particularly with the teachers. I think it wrong that because there happen to be schools for which teachers are available in a certain area automatically that area should get an advantage, while schools in other parts of a city get little or no choice. At present it is the case in most big cities that if there is a need for a teacher to teach a particular subject in a school in a poorer area, and also in a school in a better part of the city, it is the junior secondary, or the poorer school, which is the last to get such a teacher. We have to make sure that these less attractive schools are properly staffed.
Most hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the shortage of teachers, and in the junior secondary schools this shortage is appalling. Hon. Members will be aware that many headmasters refer to this shortage, and the children are made aware that there does exist a sort of second-class school citizens in these junior secondary schools. The headmasters are not being cruel, the children know that academically they are grouped as second-class material. No matter how nicely we may try to phrase it or how smoothly we may attempt to put it over in terms of developing the ability of every child to the maximum, these children are not deceived. They know that when they get to a certain age the so-called bright children will go in one direction and the remainder will go in another.
During the debate yesterday on English education, the point was clearly made that different children have different abilities, and that we all recognise. All have ability and we try to find ways to develop it. Surely we know sufficient now to realise that the old-fashioned idea that intelligence is something one can touch or measure with a ruler is wrong. Intelligence is a most complicated physical function which can be developed or retarded, and it is affected by a great many factors from birth onwards. The type of environment in which a child is brought up has a much greater bearing on intelligence than was once realised. We must pay a great deal more attention to the question of nurture rather than nature. How can boys or girls realise to the full the standard of life which they can lead if they live under bad housing conditions and on an unbalanced diet?
Most of the children that I speak of in the junior secondary schools are from families where the parents had much the same educational experiences as their children are now having. School for them was a place of unhappy memories to be got through as quickly as possible so that money could be earned and, with it, some measure of independence and illusory freedom. If we are to reach the Robbins target and beyond, which I think we must do, we must break this pattern which has been going on for so long. We want to get every boy and girl into some form of higher education for our own industrial survival. Everyone must be given a chance in life, if we want to call ourselves a first rate nation. In a materialist world people may get a chance in life because ultimately industry and commerce will need to develop people of a higher standard of education.
After all this criticism, it is only right that I should say something about the practical steps that we must take. Some of these could be brought into effect with minimal expense, and the rewards would be quite considerable. We must start by making all parents much more conscious of the importance to their children of their own attitude to Education. We must put education before people, and it is terribly important that we should do it in a language that parents understand.
The complications of modern education are such that many headmasters who have spent their working lives in education do not know from month to month what the requirements of higher education will be. I have spoken to some of them fairly recently and they have said that they can hardly keep abreast themselves of the requirements for entrance to the various universities and institutions for higher education. What chance then have parents who left school 20 years ago of being able to guide their children when they find that the teachers talk a language which is just a bit beyond them. In some parts of England special work has been done in this connection. Sheffield has made a special study of the presentation of the problems of their children to the parents in a language which the parents can understand.
We must also start to give the junior secondary schools a much fairer share of the teachers, using either monetary incentive or a slightly more rigid quota system. Most of all, we must use every means possible through the ante-natal clinics and through television to impress upon parents the importance of the physical well being of their children in relation to their mental development.
An hon. Member mentioned the fact that teachers who go to residential schools find that after a short period when they get to know the children they are brighter and respond much better—they are a totally different type of animal. This is understandable, because at the residential schools the children are getting a rigid curriculum which they get to like. They go to bed at a reasonable time, the food is well-balanced, they are in healthy, fresh, open surroundings, and the atmosphere is conducive to their participation in the education that they are receiving.
We must start making the parents aware of these things. I think that with a little skill and understanding people who can manage to sell detergents by advertising on television could manage to get across these simple ideas to the parents. I make no apology for confining myself almost exclusively to the question of the junior secondary schools, which provide for 70 per cent. of our school population, because we must use these children much more effectively than we have done in the past. We could awaken the hunger which I am sure exists in these children for knowledge and mental exercise. That hunger is illustrated at present by their knowing all the football teams in their area, the names of the footballers and where they come from. They know the "Top Twenty" for this month and can give the names of the ones who went before. If children are interested in these things, surely we should spend some time in trying to understand why they shy at the idea of ordinary academic lessons.
If we can do this, we shall have gone a long way towards liberating the energy which will create a new generation of brighter, fitter and much more inquisitive children who will take an active part in the world around them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) drew attention to the position of the village schools. I feel that attention should also be given to the position of the even more remote country schools which exist where there may not be even a village or hamlet—the small schools in the high upland areas of the southern uplands and places such as that.
There is an impression which may not be well-founded, but is very general, that, administratively, these schools are closed with too much emphasis on the economic results and too little on the social and other reasons which require to be borne in mind. One of the social reasons was mentioned by an hon. Member opposite—the effect of the environment upon the pupil. In these small country schools the environment is very much quieter than it is in the towns and cities. Instead of the noise of traffic, the pupil may hear the call of the curlew and peewit from outside the window.
There is an air of freshness, the effect of the scenery of the hills and the upland valleys and the greater impact of the personality of the teacher, especially in the smaller one-teacher schools. The school is more of a team and, again, it is a matter of impression but I suggest that research would show the service to the country and the character of the average of the citizens produced by these schools in the remoter parts.
In saying that, I am in no way belittling the contributions made by the pupils in the cities, but the contribution made by the pupil in the small upland school is different and he perhaps possesses a greater degree of self-reliance. If these small schools are kept up for other than economic reasons, depopulation in such areas will be discouraged. The school is there as an additional social amenity in the high valley in the case I am thinking of particularly.
The time has now come, as in the case of railways in remote regions, to think of other than economic reasons why they should not be closed. The matter should be looked into closely. The same has been the case for a long time as regards farms in upland regions which get special hill subsidies and other assistance recognising the difficulties with which they are faced. Surely one of the most precious of all our national products is the character of the children who are being produced in such areas. They should be helped, artificially if need be, by leaning somewhat heavily away from purely economic reasons.
I mention that class of small upland school of even more remote character than the village school which was brought to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East.
I, of course, agree with the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Anderson). He can rest assured that my hon. Friends and I, when we cross the Floor, will see to it that the small schools in the upland districts of Scotland to which he referred will receive far more attention from a Labour Government than they have so far received from a Tory Government.
Our debate today has been largely concerned with the practicalities of education. With that I have no quarrel. That will be my theme in dealing particularly with the city from which I come. I am certain that hon. Members will agree that the practicalities of education must never obscure the vision on which education lives and thrives, for when vision departs from education it will lose its greatest value. Often there may tend to be conflict between the vision of education which we all have and the practical issues which arise in trying to materialise our vision.
I agree that there should be no real conflict between these aspects. Nevertheless, it does happen, particularly when we deal with the provision of finance. How much shall we spend on the future? What shall we allocate to the present? That balance may be hard to strike, but in my view too little attention and too little money are being devoted towards preparing youth, not so much for the future as for the kind of future to which it is committed. No one has emphasised that aspect more than my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton—
I am sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael). I suppose that is one of those natural errors into which one may fall, especially those of us who knew his father. My hon. Friend emphasised that aspect very well when he said that in Scotland today, instancing specially the city he knows so well, cheap education is still the theme in too many places in Glasgow. The Secretary of State for Scotland must be aware of the fact that junior secondary education, as it is called, was created almost to keep a certain section of the community clear of what we call the senior secondary schools.
The important thing today, as I have said, is not just the future but the kind of future which faces our children. Most people believe that the new technologies will provide more leisure. If they do provide more leisure, in due course a Secretary of State for Scotland must realise that we have to educate for leisure just as much as we have to educate for work. That is very important to recognise because within leisure we shall have a great wide field, not merely for sport but for art, music and a whole new type of culture. It will be new to many people. If it is important that people should work, it is equally important that they should be able to employ their leisure usefully and effectively towards the raising of the whole cultural value of the community in which they live.
This also means a new attitude towards the qualifications of the men and women who will be teaching those children in the years that lie ahead. I wonder if the Secretary of State realises how very far we are behind the practice of other countries in our attitude towards leisure. Does he realise that today sport is a subject for a degree in certain universities outside Britain? Sport is given the status which is given to music, to mathematics, to English and all the other subjects that are normally regarded as qualifications for a degree. Sport is now raised to the same eminence as those academic topics.
In Shanghai University an immense stadium is provided for students. There is accommodation for living at the stadium with a tutor and others qualified to carry on the training of students to the level of acquiring a pass in the subject of sport. In other words, they will go out to the schools not in any way inferior academically to any other member of the staff. They will have a university education equal to that of any mathematics teacher or any other teacher on the staff.
May I make a suggestion to my hon. Friend? He is dealing with education in the future, education for work and education for leisure, but he has not said a word—and I should like him to say a word—about education for service to the community. There are some universities, as he knows, which give education under the heading "Science and work". The Military College at Camberley teaches "Science and warfare". I suggest that there should be "Science and service" and—
I did not realise that my hon. and learned Friend was inserting a speech within my speech. While I always listen to him with pleasure, I am not quite so happy when he tries to curl himself quite so closely into my arms as he did. I have been sitting on this blessed spot since 3.30 p.m. and it is now 8.11 p.m. My stomach is empty and my head is full, because ideas have been growing all the time I have been sitting here. I was tempted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) in the most interesting speech which he made on methodology in schools and in defending the youth of today. What marvellous young men and women we are growing in our midst and how little credit we give to them! Anything they do wrong, or anything which is done wrong by one of their number, immediately receives enormous headlines in the Press. But seldom do we see a word of credit given to the good work which they do in organised groups and bodies.
I should have loved to follow other hon. Members in their arguments, too, but I am thinking that one or two of my hon. Friends have, like myself, been sitting in the Chamber for a considerable time, and I do not want to be too long. I must therefore discourage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), however estimable may have been his interruption, and I must leave it to him to develop for himself what he thought he might develop out of me.
I return to the point which I was making.
There is no need to apologise.
I turn to the point which I was developing, that the new technology will provide more leisure. I agree that at the moment this is not fully in evidence, but radiation and reactor technology will not only have a marked effect on productivity, earnings and employment but will also tend to speed up the application of automation. One of the results of this change in industry is to install into the machine or the process man's basic skills and consequently to diminish the margin between skilled and unskilled labour. Automation, as I see it, includes integration, electronics and computers; and it contains within itself the means of enriching the lives of people; ending poverty; providing more leisure and leading to a new cultural life for all.
It is for these advances that the schools of today must prepare. When I say schools, I mean schools at all levels, and the universities. I say nothing about the location of universities still under consideration, but if I were to do so I should agree fully with the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who suggested that their proper location is not necessarily in the populated areas but in those areas of Scotland which are least populated.
Schools must include universities, technical and technological colleges and further education in all its aspects. I was delighted to hear what the Secretary of State said about further education and what it means today in our schools, but I was sorry that he did not develop it as far as he might well have done. As the former head of one of our great further education centres in the city of Glasgow with a staff of 80 teachers and 1,400 pupils, I required seven schools to contain the courses and classes which had to be carried on. One headmaster to organise everything! When I say that, the Secretary of State will realise what a poverty-striken state those schools were in for equipment when I needed seven separate places to carry on further education. There is also compulsory education for the young.
This is the step forward with which I particularly want to deal. The school-leaving age is to be raised to 16 by 1970–71. I come up against the harsh practicalities, although I am not forgetting the risks which are involved in that decision. The Government's resolve to raise the school-leaving age fully commends itself to me, but it demands more money, more schools, more teachers and more playing space. At the moment, Glasgow schools are short of playing space to the extent of 200 acres. If by 1970–71 the decision which the Secretary of State has taken on behalf of his Government is implemented, then Glasgow will be short of 440 acres of playing space for the new and the former schools.
The Secretary of State told us that colleges of further education will require 12 to 13 acres of space for their premises. I fully approve of that. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there are few schools in Glasgow which have been able to preserve the seven acres of school premise space for secondary schools and the four and a half acres laid down in the code for primary schools. In Glasgow, as a result of the Secretary of State's decision, 12 new schools will be required to house the extra pupils absorbed by the new leaving age. The education authority estimates that £10 million of capital expenditure will be necessary to provide those new buildings made necessary by this change. This sum, the authority says, should be spent during 1968–69 and 1969–70 if these school buildings are to be ready to accommodate the new pupils. A few moments ago, before the Secretary of State arrived, I think, the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that we must have the schools at the same time as other necessary adjustments.
In addition, says the authority, projects already on the building programme would require to be started before 1968. This involves the spending of £5 million, if the authority is to do that job. Faced with that situation, this year Glasgow is being allocated only £2½ million per annum for the new accommodation which it requires. The present building programme to meet the needs now existing in the city will be far from completed before the authority is called on to provide more room for the extra year.
If the Government will the deed, as they are doing, it is their job to ensure that funds are available for its achievement. They must not, in practice, actually retard what they profess to be promoting. It is sheer deception to talk of raising the leaving age to 16 if, when the time comes, the buildings to house the pupils are not available. In Glasgow, where 15,000 new places must be found, the problem is particularly acute. There is the difficulty of sites. These are just unobtainable. If the Secretary of State thinks that he can find a site in Glasgow on which to build a new school for the raised leaving age, I ask him to come and do it. He will not find it. Therefore, for 1970 additional building to meet the Secretary of State's requirements will require to be in the form of fourth year blocks at other existing school in the city.
This solution will eat up presently used playing space. Therefore, the new schools, if they are designed properly, must allow for games halls within their walls. I hope that the Secretary of State understands the meaning attached to games halls. They are reputably about the size of three ordinary gymnasiums. Students will have to go inside if the playing space cannot be found outside. Alternatively, we shall be faced with the waste of educational time involved in long journeys to the city's playing fields in the marginal areas.
I see that waste of educational time going on just now. The children in Pollok must come by bus to Pollock-shaws baths for their swimming lesson. That journey alone consumes the best part of half an hour. They spend half an hour in the bath. Another half hour is spent returning to school. A whole hour is thus wasted every time a class goes for a lesson which, in itself, requires only half that time.
Then there is the problem of staffing. This is where cheapness in education may again intrude its head. So I lay down two axioms. First, teachers cannot be fully prepared for their job in the age of automation by automative methods; nor, at an age when the boys of Eton are only leaving school, should they necessarily be precipitated into the onerous task of equipping today's youth to play its proper part in an exciting and exactly world.
Secondly, Scottish education has been run too cheaply for too long. We must lift it on to the plane nearer that which education occupies already in many other countries but which has been denied to Scotland for too long. This attitude has intensified the existing problem of teacher shortage which now faces the Secretary of State. If Glasgow is to meet the demands of raising the school-leaving age to 16, it needs 1,000 extra teachers. These must have a far greater variety of qualifications than teachers trained earlier are supposed to need. They must have greater experience, greater qualifications and better training.
These facts simply emphasise the axioms I have stated. Glasgow's shortage of teachers today is 1,063. Add to that the 1,000 which Glasgow will lack in 1970 and we have the city facing a shortage of over 2,000 teachers to meet the demands of the Secretary of State. For Scotland as a whole, the estimated teacher deficiency in 1970, when the school-leaving age of 16 becomes operative, will be 5,150. The new leaving age will require 5,000 additional teachers. Therefore, the Minister faces the fact that 10,000 more teachers will be required by 1970–71 if he is to crown with success the programme he is putting before us tonight.
The conflict between the real and the ideal in education is a continuing dichotomy. I have not had time to say much about the ideal, but in education it must never be submerged at any time by the clamant and pressing needs of the present.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will not expect me to follow his discourse too closely. Nobody speaks with greater authority about Scottish education than the hon. Member; and after he has dealt with something, usually very little remains to be said about it. The hon. Member spoke about the difference between the real and the ideal and in education that is true. I would like to confine my remarks to what I think is the real, and deal a little more fully with what the hon. Member called the harsh, hard practicalities flowing from the raising of the school-leaving age.
I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his courageous action in deciding to raise the school-leaving age in 1970 to 16. A great deal has been said about this and the difficulties which will flow from it. However, in congratulating my right hon. Friend on taking that decision, I wish to congratulate him in connection with another matter which has not been mentioned; the careful and masterly appreciation he has had of the situation.
I have had the privilege of reading the Scottish Education Department's Circular No. 562. It illustrates the tremendous amount of forethought which has been given by my right hon. Friend to the difficulties arising from the various problems we have been discussing. The statements in that circular contrast with the rather woolly suggestions that are made by hon. Members opposite from time to time in connection with raising the school-leaving age. They talk about raising it "as soon as practicable" and make other statements, while my right hon. Friend has got down to the problem, has thought it out and has reached the conclusion that 1970 is about the right time to do it.
It is clear from the circular that my right hon. Friend has gone into all the aspects involved in doing this, including the preliminary action which must be taken by local education authorities in preparation for raising the school-leaving age, along with making forecasts of their difficulties and planning courses for the children who will be affected. He has dealt with the supply of teachers and the problems of school building. We must all agree that my right hon. Friend has done remarkably well, certainly better than any of his predecessors on this question of school building.
As has been mentioned, school building has reached a record figure and it is interesting to see how the achievement in school building has increased regularly year by year under the present Government. The most interesting features are that in the last two years, 1962–63, the achievement in school building has exceeded the whole of the expenditure on school building during the period 1945–51. On that, everyone will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend.
Although my right hon. Friend has done remarkably well on school building, has he done enough? It seems that greater capital investment is required immediately to achieve more school building. In the circular to which I refer my right hon. Friend directs local authorities to increase their school building programmes for the express purpose of meeting the increase in the school-leaving age. They are directed to increase it from 1967–68 onwards. It would appear from that that my right hon. Friend is being a little optimistic, in view of the great amount of school building that is still required.
This presents difficulties from many points of view. We heard from the hon. Member for Govan of the difficulties in Glasgow. They are not so great in other areas, particularly where there is a pool in the building industry and where the industry can easily handle the increase. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider the ability of local education authorities to produce the buildings which are urgently required.
Hon. and right hon. Members opposite have spoken of the theory of fair shares for all but, in this instance, we should depart from that. If a local education authority finds that it has the labour and the finance necessary to get on with building, it should get on with the building. That area should not be held back because of the difficulties of another.
In this matter my right hon. Friend has to wear another of his hats. He has to remember that he is Prime Minister of Scotland, that trade and industry in Scotland must be maintained, and that where there is—as there is in the north of Scotland—a decided danger of rural depopulation and a running down of the building industry he will have to take that into account and allow local education authorities which have the ability to get on with the building of schools, irrespective of whether or not they get on faster than others.
I turn to my right hon. Friend's instructions to local authorities to get on with the building of schools from 1967–68 onwards with a view to the raising of the school-leaving age. I believe that he is being unduly optimistic. Any sizeable school extension will normally take two or three years to complete, so that if the very last of the building schemes for this purpose were to be started in 1968 they would not be ready in 1970. My right hon. Friend must, therefore, think again, and instruct local education authorities to start building, wherever practicable, for this purpose in anticipation of 1967–68, if we are to have the buildings ready for 1970, when the school-leaving age is increased. I truly believe that if the building does not begin until 1967, necessary accommodation cannot possibly be ready in time.
In a great many local authority areas it is very difficult to say how many schemes will be required for this purpose, because local education authorities do not know what will be the policy of the Scottish education authority in regard to the centralisation of schools. In Aberdeenshire, West a great many small secondary schools are likely to be closed, and the work centralised in bigger establishments. The same thing will happen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon). Between us, we have no fewer than 50 schools that at present take secondary pupils. We do not know how many of them will be closed and the work centralised, and my right hon. Friend should tell us definitely so that we may plan ahead. If we have the information, we can concentrate on what he considers to be the real centres which will be the secondary schools after the leaving age has been raised.
In giving his instructions on this subject, I would ask my right hon. Friend to give very careful thought to the whole question of centralisation. It has many attractions, it leads to a saving in teachers, and can result in courses that the little schools cannot provide, but at the same time, it creates great human hardship. It should not be a matter of sitting in Edinburgh, thinking out, and putting on paper, what the repercussions are. My right hon. Friend must think of children having to walk through the snow to get to a secondary school two or three miles away, or further. I hope that he will be merciful.
The little schools have been mentioned several times today, and they constitute a serious problem in centralisation. The parents of children at one such school in Aberdeenshire, East have threatened to raise an action in the Court of Session to prevent their secondary school being closed. I hope that local education authorities in Aberdeenshire and elsewhere will not have to ride roughshod over the wishes of parents by insisting on undue centralisation.
The more we centralise, the bigger this problem will become and the bigger the centres will have to be, and more individual schemes will have to be undertaken in connection with the raising of the school-leaving age. Even if in Aberdeenshire, for instance, we have to start 20 such schemes out of the 50 in 1967 or 1968, the whole position seems quite unrealistic in view of the present allocation of money for this purpose by the Scottish Education Department.
School building is urgently required for other purposes. This has been mentioned by other hon. Members, principally representing city constituencies, who have spoken about what they call "slum schools". I do not call them slum schools, but they are schools which are not up to modern standards and they are to be found as often in the countryside as in the cities. This is a serious problem which must be tackled. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to think again about the whole question of money for school building and of giving local authorities who can do this work—and many can—their head to get on with the job. I assure him that the local authorities will co-operate to the best of their ability. All they ask for is the encouragement which is so much lacking at present.
Apart from school building, there is also the problem of the supply of teachers. This has been dealt with at great length already in the debate. Anything that I would have to say about it would be to a large extent tedious repetition, but the success which has already followed from the steps taken by my right hon. Friend is striking. Many figures have been bandied about in the debate. I would only mention one striking example and that is that whereas, in 1961–62, the number of teachers in Scotland was 37,140, in the subsequent year it was 37,794, an increase of over 650 in 12 months. We ought to congratulate my right hon. Friend on this and hope that in future that increase will not only be continued, but will be accelerated until we have by 1970 the number of teachers which we so badly require.
The departmental circular which I mentioned earlier urges all concerned to get on with this. It is worth while pointing out its exact words:
Sustained effort will be needed on the part of all concerned—including education authorities, colleges of education, and the teachers' associations—to secure an effective increase in the numbers engaged in whole-time or part-time teaching service.
On this subject I should like to repeat what I have said on other occasions. It is that it seems to me that there is a possibility of recruiting a new type of teacher, not a university graduate but a male teacher from the Services or men from other walks of life who are first-class instructors and who, with a little instruction, could be made into effective teachers to lead boys, particularly along the less academic walks of life.
During my time in the Services I saw many excellent instructors. These men are wasted once they leave the Service. I remember particularly one first-class instructor who was a natural leader of men. He had had a reasonable education. He could easily teach a non-academic class with a little encouragement, but he is wasting his days delivering letters as a postman. He is doing a useful job of work, but he and many like him could do useful work as teachers if their services were recruited after a certain amount of training.
No mention has been made so far in the debate of the unfair treatment meted out to retired teachers when they are brought back into teaching. It is monstrous that these people, who have spent a lifetime in teaching and who are excellent, most experienced teachers, should find their pensions cut off when they are persuaded to come out of retirement and return to part-time teaching. It is monstrous that there should be one payment for teachers before retirement and another for some teachers who go back to help the nation in dire need.
I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a most pathetic letter from a retired teacher which appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on 26th June. This is what he wrote:
I retired eight years ago (age limit) and I was immediately asked if I would take a part-time job—2½ days per week—in a local school. I was quite glad to do so, as there was such a shortage of teachers in the district … but when I count up the amount of pension I have lost during these eight years … it just makes by blood boil. The princely sum I receive per month for pension is £6. I wish that something could be done for us poor unfortunate victims of chance.
These are very worthy and excellent people—it would not be possible to get better teachers—who are helping out to the best of their ability. They are invaluable and they should be encouraged instead of discouraged, as has happened over the past few years. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give these people the encouragement which is their right. They have paid for their pensions and if they help out the educational authorities in time of need they are entitled to proper payment.
The other point which is dealt with at length in the circular is the question of courses. The Brunton Report, which was published last year, rightly draws attention to the need for making secondary school courses more realistic and interesting by relating them more closely to the vocational interests of the pupils. The circular asks local authorities to develop work-based courses in junior secondary schools, and I believe that most education authorities are doing that. But local education authorities are finding considerable difficulty in many cases in organising these courses.
In Aberdeenshire, and other parts of north and south Scotland, the most important industry is agriculture. My local education authority in Aberdeenshire has developed plans for an agricultural course for junior secondary pupils at various places, but it looks as though these will be held up for some years possibly for want of capital investment. There is a lack of money. I believe that local education authorities will co-operate with the Government in every possible way in producing these courses if they get the facilities.
In agricultural education my right hon. Friend can do a lot by wearing another of his hats. After all, he is Minister of Agriculture for Scotland as well as Minister of Education for Scotland. These courses have got to be worked out in collaboration with the local agricultural colleges. The Aberdeenshire course that I have mentioned has been worked out in collaboration with the agricultural college, but it does not appear to be collaborating as it ought to do. I do not know whether it is short of money or not, but I ask my right hon. Friend to do what he can in his other capacity, to make sure that these agricultural courses get the encouragement they deserve.
The Aberdeenshire authority has participated in a block release scheme for agricultural apprentices in connection with the North of Scotland College of Agriculture. But the college does not appear to be in a position to collaborate in the way that one would hope. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to do everything he possibly can to bring together the various Departments of the Scottish Office to make sure that all these vocational courses proceed in the way they should.
I apologise for having spoken for so long. I started by congratulating my right hon. Friend on his bold and wise decision to increase the school-leaving age by 1970. I am perfectly certain that this is practicable. If I have been critical of my right hon. Friend, I have tried to make my criticisms practical criticisms. I feel that from this appreciation contained in the departmental circular he understands very well what the position is. I am certain that I speak for every local education authority in Scotland when I say that we are willing and anxious to co-operate with him in every possible way to make this decision an unqualified success.
I begin with a comment about television. There have been various references to Glasgow's great achievements in using television, achievements which I greatly applaud, but I must tell the Committee that Queen Ann's School in Dunfermline was the pioneer of a com- pletely new form of school television almost unique in this country, and, I believe, unique in Europe. Under this system, there is mutual class instruction and discussion back and forth among students. It reflects great credit on the headmaster and on Fife County Council which pioneered it.
I turn now to the specific point which I wish to raise on page 11 of the Report, which refers to the impact of Robbins on Scottish education. We read:
Among the many recommendations in the Report of significance in the educational sectors with which the Secretary of State is concerned are various measures for the improvement of co-operation between institutions of higher education and the schools; the introduction in colleges of education of four-year courses for suitable students leading to a degree awarded by universities … the granting of university status to the most advanced Scottish central institutions".
The first point is vital—relations between higher institutions and the schools We must build better bridges between the different levels of our education system. Our bridges in the past have been very rickety. There has been almost no liaison, although the fault has not been with the schools or universities. The decisions of the board formerly concerned with university entrance have been more or less imposed unilaterally on the schools and entire school curricula have had to be changed as a result. In this matter we must see Scottish education as a whole.
This brings me to the problem of university organisation within the context of Scottish education. The universities rightly do not want to be placed under the Scottish Education Department, yet there are certain problems in Scottish university education common among the universities themselves, as distinct from English universities, and concerned with the links between the Scottish schools, which have their own education system, and the universities. The Minister rejected the idea, rightly, I think, of putting the universities under the Scottish education Department, but I am not sure that he can thereby write them off.
We are unique in Scotland in having had a special Act, the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889, which has kept the universities together to some extent and at the same time has, to some extent, kept them in contact with other sectors of Scottish education. I understand that the Act is now to be repealed, or drastically amended. If this Act is repealed, as a result of the new U.G.C. organisation, Scotland will lose the overall approach to education which has been so valuable in the past. How can we maintain the Secretary of State's responsibility for Scottish education if, as soon as boys and girls have left school, they pass completely out of his province of responsibility? We must strengthen the links between the Scottish universities and other educational levels, if necessary having on the university governing councils some representatives from the Scottish teaching profession. The universities would also benefit from representatives from a wide cross-section of national life—business men, local authority people, the trades unions and others—on their governing bodies. I know that this is already done to some extent. If necessary, we could have ministerial appointees on the governing councils of the universities who will be able to act as the bridge with the special problems of our Scottish schools. They would not be the Minister's delegates in the sense of carrying out his instructions. They would be much more like people appointed by the Minister to hospital boards who, once appointed, act independently in the interests of the board on which they serve, though preserving the kind of links with other bodies which are so vital. Although I greatly value the independence of universities, I think that appointees of this kind who would be able to act independently in the interests of the university concerned could be most valuable in bridging the gap. I do not think that they would undermine the autonomy of the universities.
Another solution would be to have a Scottish Minister concerned with the allocation of U.G.C. grants to Scotland. I should not make this Minister the Under-Secretary of State, with all respect to the noble Lady. This is nothing personal against her. I am talking now about the Department. This would give departmental control of the universities, which they do not want, but I see no objection to a Minister as overlord, a Minister of State in Scotland, who would have some vague and general responsibility for the universities, who would be in touch with the unique characteristics of Scottish education and who, in this way, would help to build this bridge which is so important.
The bridge can be built in other ways. The universities must go out to the school. Some universities, such as Edinburgh, do this. There should be conferences of headmasters held at the universities. Students should be taken on tour and shown what is available at the universities, and should discuss with university dons on the problems that they face in their sixth forms and what they hope to do at the university.
Scotland is better than England in one respect, in that we have the Scottish ordinary degree, which is a very good idea. The trouble in English universities is that students come from school and are forced to specialise before they have acquired the knowledge to enable them to choose the subject in which they might want to specialise. They base their choice on the fact that they were good at a certain subject at school. But a university offers a much wider range of subjects. This is why English students often specialise not in subjects like social studies but in subjects that they did at school. A student may decide to specialise in a subject because he liked the teacher who took that subject at school. These are considerations based on the past and not on the future.
The ordinary degree gives the student the choice of a group of subjects which he might want to take further. One might call the first year of the ordinary degree one of planned procrastination, but it gives the student the opportunity to compare one subject with another and find where his interest and aptitude lie.
Similarly, the four-year honours degree in Scotland enables the student to defer his specialisation until he has had the chance to look round. This is a very important point. A fateful choice of speciality in the first year commits a boy or girl for a lifetime.
I should like to take up what the hon. Gentleman was saying about Scotland and the U.G.C. No English Minister decides in detail the allocation of university capital finance. This is a matter for the U.G.C. But, first, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned as I am to see that the universities globally get enough finance. Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason why my right hon. Friend should not have personal access to the Chairman of the U.G.C. He is in fairly close personal contact with him. There is no desire to keep the U.G.C. away from my right hon. Friend.
I am glad to have that assurance, but I think I still prefer a Scottish Minister, perhaps a Minister of State, without direct detailed control, accessible to Scottish universities. However, I have not time to pursue this very important problem.
The English consider that their pass degree is a degree for casualties, for those who fall by the wayside. The Scottish ordinary degree, on the other hand, which is part of the planning of the combined Scottish university legislation, has a lot to commend it. It is a good degree in its own right.
I would like now to look at the 1889 Act. Obviously, many of the provisions of this Act are obsolete and plainly must be changed. The amendments made to it should not shackle the Scottish universities. They should not put difficulties in the way of creating new chairs or make it impossible to carry out useful reforms as has sometimes happened in the past. These restrictive aspects of the Act are bad, but in so far as the Act provided an area of consultation in which Scotland could consider its educational problems, to develop historically its own degrees—and, in many respects, they are very good degrees—the deliberative and consultative aspects of the Act should be maintained. I should be very sorry to see them go.
I turn to internal university organisation. The problem of the universities is to become more responsive to outside opinion—teacher opinion, student opinion and parent opinion. I have already said that I should like to see governing bodies including many more consumer interests. I am a great believer in consumer interests being represented on all bodies, whether universities or any other form of professional organisation. I should also like to see much more internal self-government. I should like the university governing bodies to have more junior staff who have a say in the matter. I should like to see the American system of rotating headships of departments. It is a bad thing that an eminent professor of, say, physics should become head of a department and get obsessed and involved in paper work, dictating numerous letters and attending committees and in this way getting snowed down under it all to the detriment of his academic work. What is worse, he might actually come to like it.
The question of staff-student ratios has already been mentioned. In the Scottish universities, we must really try to reduce the size of our classes. In the smaller class, there is an area of curiosity and investigation and provoking the student to new ideas which cannot be done in the larger classes. A small class provides intimate contact; it gives a delicate mechanism of inquiry and response, of quest and discovery. Again, however, the Scottish universities are dependent upon what money the Government give them to do this.
The point about the universities is that they have a research and a teaching function. One of the problems is that the research function is vastly changing. The scale and character of modern research call for a much greater range of skills and of equipment which is expensive and complex. In the 1920s, Sir John Cock-croft spent £1,000 on an experiment which had profound repercussions upon the whole of science in the modern world. To develop similar experiments now would need machinery and equipment worth £10 million. In this sense, the scale of research is changing. Scientists no longer work so much alone but in teams. Universities must be large enough to accommodate these big research departments and to spread the equipment overheads. This is why we need a much more flexible organisation of subjects in universities. The fact that a subject has existed for 200 years does not mean that it should necessarily continue for another 200 years.
We should experiment more with new studies. Scotland has been backward in the social sciences, research into the problems of modern society, education, old age, the sociology of economic growth, and so on. We need these studies to fill the administrative posts that our Welfare State will make more and more necessary; for example, administrative posts in government, local government, the welfare services, hospitals and the rest. The enlightened amateur must give way to the professional in the realm of social studies. Here, Scotland has, perhaps, lagged a little bit.
Social studies are important in bridging the gap between the arts and sciences. Social science has improved by becoming statistical and analytical. On the other hand, it still involves humane judgments and a liberal approach to the problems of society that one associates more, perhaps, with the arts.
I have spoken of the fact that the tradition for a department to have a permanent head is a bad one. More flexibility is needed, with rotating headships. We also need more flexibility in university government and to change the people on the committees from time to time not restricting membership always to professors. We need to give professors a rest from administrative work at intervals and to bring on younger dons, who often benefit from this kind of committee experience provided that it does not go too far and occupy all their time. It gives them a sense of responsibility and an idea of public work, the reconciliation of university problems with national needs and the way in which universities must adjust themselves to changing conditions.
I turn now to the shortage of resources. I would not be as revolutionary as to propose an additional university term in the academic year, because we must leave the so-called vacations for staff research, the writing of papers and the like. We may, however, have to experiment with more weeks in a university term. In this age, universities should not close down for quite as many months of the year as they have done. Although a new term might be too revolutionary, I see no reason why we should not experiment with more weeks in the term.
My last point is one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). We are very niggardly about adult education in Scotland. If we believe that the rôle of the university is to integrate itself in regional life and develop the cultural and educational life of a region, we must do more in this sphere. It may be adult education at an advanced level. It may be the bringing of professional men back to make them up to date on their subjects which they may have stopped studying 10 or 15 years ago. It may be refresher courses for married women who want to take up teaching or return to the university. It may be courses for non-graduates, the casualties of the age when it was not easy to get into the university, or youngsters who developed late.
We must provide adult education. Many bodies can do it and should be used. Universities can do it well; they can provide adult education at the highest intellectual level. I urge the Minister to look into the question of more money being devoted to adult education, not only through existing associations and institutions but channelled through departments of extra-mural study at the universities. Adult education in this sense can bring many more people into touch with modern studies, though I do not say that all modern studies are better than old studies. I believe that adult education should keep its concern for the humanities. It can bring up into touch, for instance, with the arts and history. I have always believed that history gives us a sense of perception about the present and enriches and deepens our experience of life. Studies of old civilisations can improve and instruct us. I should like to see studies in the universities in the regions, bringing more people in touch with the educational and cultural life of Scotland.
The noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to the debate, does not want a full half hour, so we have, therefore, a fair amount of time to spread between us. Before I continue I should like to say that Scottish Members appreciate that an English Minister has stayed as long as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State for Education and Science has been listening to us.
I am relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) made the speech he did. It has fallen to my lot, in the division of labour in this debate, to deal with higher education. Since the debate began I have had the feeling that I might seem to be a little out of touch, because, although a great many of the problems of the year have been concerned with university and other higher education, the bigger problems concerning other forms of education have remained. The bulk of the debate has been concerned with them.
I should like to take up one or two matters in the sphere of higher education. The noble Lady will be prepared for that because a number of my hon. Friends have been raising these matters in Questions, and so on, for some time, and she and her colleagues know very well that we are concerned about a number of matters in the realm of the universities and the other higher education institutions.
The point of view just expressed on so many key topics in higher education by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs is one which is very genial to me. As he went on with his speech, I found myself thinking that here was the matter being put that I wanted to put, but being put rather better and perhaps rather more economically than I could put it.
I will try to avoid duplication, but I must go over the one matter that the Secretary of State dealt with in connection with the universities—the question of Ministerial responsibility. He will know from earlier evenings in the House that we are very dissatisfied about this, and I do not think that many of my hon. Friends will have found their dissatisfaction much decreased by what he said today.
It does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with that point at all. I suppose there has been a slight advance, in that what we have always been met with before has been plain stonewalling. We have been told simply, "This is that", and that is about all. At least, he has varied that a little, and gone a little beyond it, but he has not taken up the points that we are really concerned about.
The Robbins Report suggested that there should be two Ministers who were concerned with education—one with higher education and the other with lower. The decision of the Government on this point was deferred, as the Prime Minister explained, until public opinion could be consulted. Finally, the Prime Minister decided upon a single Minister for England and Wales. The Prime Minister and the Ministers concerned with the relevant Departments explained to the House that this decision was based on principle, and was not an expedient or a casual solution to a problem which just happened to be there and required to have something done about it.
Under the old arrangement the universities were under the Treasury and the schools under the Ministry of Education. This was being changed, we were told, because the first principle was that school education cannot be separated from higher education. We were told that there was a continuous spectrum running from the primary school to what the Minister apologised for calling tertiary education. He need not have called it that. We knew what he meant.
It was not we who argued this; it was the Minister's colleague. There is no need for him to put to us any contradiction, modification or diminution of that point of view. We accept this point of view and the importance of this principle, but it was not we who put it forward, or who took a decision on it; it was his Government—his own colleagues. We agree that there should be one Minister to preside over the junction between school education and higher education; one Minister—so far as it can be done by a Minister—to harmonise relations between one group of teachers and the other, one Minister to deal with questions of examination relations between the two groups, and so on.
We accept that, because we realise that the job of teaching is a very important part of the work of the universities. Their other job—the job of inquiry—has tended to become rather more prominent in public statements than is necessary, and has tended to suggest that decisions about the future of the universities must depend on that and not mainly on the work of teaching institutions.
This decision, made in respect of England and Wales and specifically stated to have been based on principle, was not applied to Scotland. That is our objection to this policy. On various occasions the Ministry has boasted that it has not applied it to Scotland. It has said that there has been no substantial change in Scotland and no alteration in the position of the Secretary of State. Ministers have told us that, and have appeared to pat themselves on the back when doing so, in spite of having congratulated themselves earlier for taking a new decision in principle for England and Wales.
No reason was given why Scotland should be dealt with differently, until the right hon. Gentleman's first attempt this evening. I doubt whether many of us will find his arguments particularly convincing. We wonder just why this decision was reached for Scotland. "Consult the public", said the Prime Minister. When he made that announcement my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) asked him whom, among the Scottish public, he would consult, and she received no answer.
We could ask that question again, because it is of importance, but I am certain that, once again, we would get no answer. We could hazard a fair guess at what the answer would be. It is, in part—and very likely in whole—that he has consulted the principals of the universities. I doubt very much whether, in Scotland, he consulted anyone else. The Scottish universities are perfectly content with this arrangement, so we are told. I can understand that. They did not want unification under one Ministry.
I wonder how many of the principals and vice-chancellors of English and Welsh universities did want the unification with England and Wales. Has the right hon. Gentleman, with his colleagues, consulted other than the university authorities when dealing with the question in its English and Welsh aspects? I wonder, and I doubt, whether they consulted anyone outside the university authorities in Scotland. If the noble Lady can tell us that they did, I shall be very interested indeed to learn who they were, and what opinions they gave.
The position of the Secretary of State is protected, in so far as words can protect it. The Minister of State restated it a few minutes ago, in a variation of what we have been accustomed to be told; that the Secretary of State will be consulted and will be kept in touch, and that kind of thing. One would expect that. One would hope that that sort of thing would not be overlooked.
What we want is some Ministerial responsibility in a Scottish Minister, and this could be achieved. There is one particular and special question which illustrates the difficulty of not having achieved it and that is the position of the colleges of education. They are now under the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are to be under the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the assumption that the changes suggested by Robbins go through. So not only are the universities and the schools in Scotland under separate Ministers, but the colleges of education and the schools in Scotland are under separate Ministers. The colleges of education could supply the teachers for the schools which use the schools as a training ground for their students, but they are to be under a separate Minister.
These institutions supplying teachers to the Scottish schools will be, in fact, under the Minister who controls, among other things, the English and Welsh schools, but they will not be under the Minister who controls the Scottish schools. This seems to us quite paradoxical, and perhaps the most flagrant and most obvious instance of this policy—which, in general, is wrong—being clearly and obviously wrong.
That chorus from my hon. Friends makes clear what we feel. If the Minister had something in his mind about this he might have been more forthcoming.
When he spoke earlier the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the possibilities that occurred to him as alternatives to the present arrangement. He suggested that one or other of these might be what we wanted. Let me make clear that we do not want to separate the universities of England and Wales, on the one hand, and those of Scotland, on the other. They belong to the same community now and there does not appear to be a strong reason for breaking that community. We do not want, in the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, to break the academic ties, and transfer the Scottish schools to the Minister of State for Education and Science for the United Kingdom.
To take up another of his points, we do not think—just by the way—that Ministerial responsibility is the only way in which relations between schools and universities can be improved and helped. It is an important way, but certainly not the only way. We would like to keep the universities as one body and the U.G.C., too. We are not suggesting two U.G.C.s, although there has been in Scotland a number of people who have asked themselves whether two U.G.C.s would be a good thing, or whether we need a separate Scottish committee of the U.G.C., or something of that sort, and there has been by Mr. J. P. Mackintosh a suggestion for a separate Scottish Minister of Education.
We do not want that. What we suggest is contained in the point made by my hon. Friend. I will put it perhaps a little more specifically than he did. We want ministerial responsibility in Scotland. The U.G.C. might well be responsible to the two Ministers together, the Minister of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
This is not constitutionally impossible—indeed, it is constitutionally as easy as it could be—and it is not, presumably, practically impossible because one imagines that the two colleagues work closely enough together for friction not to develop and it recognises the special relationship between the Scottish Minister and Scottish educational institutions. It also, to some extent, expresses what I imagine will be a fairly clear opinion of the Scottish people when the dust settles over these changes.
I do not believe that the Scottish people will be satisfied in a few years from now with the present situation. I do not believe that they will accept a position in which English and Welsh universities and schools are under one Minister, with the advantage that has been stated in principle, and the Scottish are not. I think that in the course of time, when the dust settles and the Scottish people see all these things clearly and as part of their ordinary daily life—things that they will become accustomed to—they will demand what we are asking for now, that there should be a unified control of the schools and universities in Scotland. If it is impossible to have the U.G.C. responsible jointly to the two Ministers in the way I have suggested, I hope that the noble Lady will say why.
There are one or two other matters in connection with higher education that are fairly urgent and which my hon. Friends have raised, and I should like to say something about them. First, I should like to say a word about the new university. The importance of that is, of course, that a new university is coming to Scotland. We are concerned just now with the decision as to its location, but this is secondary. I should imagine that the citizens of all the competing places would think, first of all, that it is a good thing that Scotland should have a new university. This is the important thing.
That being the case, it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues should have made it clear to the U.G.C. that it should be settled quickly where the new institution is to be located. There was no urgency about it, and except for the pressure of my hon. Friends I do not think that there would have been a decision anything like as early in the year as appears to be now likely. We were told that there was no priority.
On 10th March, the Minister of State for Education and Science said that the U.G.C. had had to give priority to other things. He added that the new university
cannot make an appreciable contribution to the crash programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 226.]
Of course it cannot; it is too late. Therefore, it was not to get priority from the U.G.C., but why cannot it make an appreciable contribution to the crash programme? I have with me a report of the decision which was given in the Scotsman on 9th May, 1961. It is headed:
No Fifth University for Scotland.
It says, in part:
There is to be no fifth university in Scotland. The University Grants Committee advised against it and Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepted their views. … Sir Keith Murray said last night that the question of a new university for Scotland was not altogether closed. The fact that universities could at present absorb the bulge did not rule out altogether the possibility.
That is why it cannot do anything appreciable to help the present crash programme, because Ministers made a bad decision on bad advice a number of years ago, when hon. Members on this side of the Committee were pointing out that Scotland needed a fifth university, as it then would have been.
We were supported by considerable informed Scottish opinion. The information on which the right decision was possible was in general available at that date, but we had to wait until the Robbins Committee reported. The Robbins Report has changed the picture completely by producing a different kind of advice based on fuller knowledge than the earlier advisers found it possible to give. We know that the U.G.C. has made a recommendation, but we do not know what it is. We await the decision of the Government.
If the Ministers concerned accept the decision of the U.G.C., very well, Scotland, I have no doubt, will be satisfied, but the decision rests with the Ministers. If they take the recommendation of the U.G.C. and turn it down, and do so for a reason which is clear and recognised to be nationally important again, I think Scotland will understand. But if they take the recommendation of the U.G.C. and turn it down because of what is rumoured to be happening now, because of some kind of pressure lobby, they will be in for well-deserved criticism.
There are two special questions I wish to ask about the new university. According to the Government there is to be one new medical school. We think that there should be more than one. Depending upon where it is located, will population needs around the new medical school be kept in mind in choosing a possible site for it? What kind of charter is it to have? Is it to have a charter which will meet the criticisms that have been levelled at some university charters, for example, by non-professorial staffs and others outside the universities?
That leads to the next general topic on which I wish to speak. The charter for the new Strathclyde University has just emerged from the Privy Council. The draft of this charter, in accordance with the College Charters Act, 1871, was laid before this House. It escaped the eagle eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who was on the look-out for it, but the final charter has not been laid. I understand that the final charter came from the Privy Council about a week ago. It has been published but, not merely has it not been laid in this House—I understand that there is no obligation to lay it, although I do not know why—it is not even available. I cannot get it from the Library. I have a copy of the draft charter, but the Library has not got the final charter.
This is a little remiss of the Government. It is apparently a minor point, but it ought to have been before hon. Members, at least in the sense of being in the Library in time for this debate. The procedure in granting the charter for Strathclyde causes us a good deal of disquiet. In the Privy Council it was not referred to the Scottish Universities Committee of the Privy Council, which includes not only Ministers but a number of distinguished laymen—not perhaps a very wide Committee, but it does not consist simply of Ministers. It was referred to a special committee which, as was explained in the House, means simply the Ministers acting together.
Here they are acting together and producing to the House, with no discussion and no publicity except for laying the draft on the Table, a charter which may or may not be to the wishes of hon. Members, of members of the staff of the university concerned—apart from the senior members—and of the general public in Glasgow and elsewhere in Scotland or anyone else. In other words, we feel that this kind of procedure is a bit too narrow. Even if the draft charter had been noted by a number of hon. Members and something done about it when it lay on the Table of the House, hon. Members would have been in no different position from members of the public. On seeing the draft charter, anyone could have sent a petition about it to the U.G.C.
The House has no particular right, no particular interest in the matter—and it is not as if there were any kind of readiness to accept radical ideas or new ideas of any kind. What is obvious in the procedure is a keeping of things away from the public and from the representatives of the public. I have not been able to look in detail at the draft charter, which is perhaps just as well, because it is only a draft and there may be changes in the final charter. But a glance at the draft charter does not reassure me greatly. Convocation, which is not a system with which I am familiar in other Scottish universities, is, under the draft charter, to include one representative of the trades houses of Glasgow and one representative of the merchant houses of Glasgow. The trades union council made recommendations about the draft charter. But there are no trade union representatives comparable with those of the trade and merchant house representatives.
This is the draft; it may be altered in the final charter—I do not know. But this is the kind of thing which we on this side of the Committee do not like. It would be far better if this kind of thing were done openly so that the ideas going into the charter could be weighed and we could decide whether privileges were being perpetuated or whether an especially favoured group was being still more favoured, whether new ideas or old ideas were being accepted or rejected.
I ask perhaps a rhetorical question—whether the Government comtemplate that the same kind of procedure would be used in connection with the charter for the new university. I hope not. I hope that we shall be assured that it will not be used by making a change in the people concerned.
I must not spend time on the 1889 Act. It is clear that there are some good things in it and some not so good. There are some things in it which my hon. Friends and I like and some that other people like—and some which are just out of date. I am not quite sure which phrase my hon. Friend used, but he said much what I wanted to say: the 1889 Act is irrelevant at present. If it is repealed it should be replaced by something which will cover not simply the four older Scottish universities, but the whole group of Scottish universities. If it is amended, it should be amended sufficiently widely.
The interest of the public should be, if it is at all possible, represented or expressed through whatever Act or amendment replaces the existing 1889 Act. I do not think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite or the universities need be at all afraid of the interest of the public. The public's interest in universities is legitimate and is now strong. From time to time I am surprised to discover how strong it is.
The one particular point of which much has been made by my hon. Friends and myself, as well as by people outside the House of Commons, is the question of responsibility for student failures. This is a matter on which public interest ought to be satisfied, so far as is reasonably possible. Prospective students, parents and prospective parents, members of local authorities and the general public, have a right to know the facts. We should like information to be given about this. We do not particularly feel that it is a good thing to have it channelled and processed through the annual report or the quinquennial report of the U.G.C. It would be much better if it were given by individual institutions.
This is one aspect of the increasing public interest in universities which the universities themselves and Ministers should accept is friendly, respectable and responsible. I do not think that the general public in Scotland take the universities lightly. They realise that as well as teaching the youngsters the universities are engaged on inquiries which may be of enormous importance for the future of mankind. They realise that universities are great institutions which shape much of the future of the people. The public is not likely to be casual about the universities. If the universities take steps to bring themselves rather more closely to the knowledge of the people, neither the people nor the universities themselves will regret it.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ended his speech at the start of the debate, he said he hoped this would be the start of a constructive discussion. We can all agree that it has been. Behind all the speeches, behind the criticisms and, once or twice, the party political points, hon. Members have shown a very genuine wish to do what they can to ensure that our educational system in Scotland shall be second to none.
We in the House of Commons and those working outside must always remind ourselves of the responsibility resting on us to present to the Scottish people an accurate picture of what is going on in Scottish education. Sometimes too many self-questionings tend to give the outside world the impression that our education system is on the decline, and that I emphatically deny. If it is under strain, that strain arises not from decay but from the enormous effort to grapple with this era of rapid scientific, technological and social change.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) spent nearly all his speech talking about the arrangements for ministerial responsibility in relation to universities. I am sure he will agree with me when I say that we all much appreciated the speech made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Dr. A. Thompson) and that many of us are very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has felt himself forced not to stand again at the next election. The hon. Gentleman made a very worthy contribution. In deciding on the arrangements as between Scotland and England for ministerial responsibility for higher education after the Robbins Report, the Government had this problem to face; they must, on the one hand, take account of the need for keeping the academic unity of the universities in Great Britain and the close association of the universities with science and the research councils and, on the other, take account of the differences between England and Scotland in other sectors of education. I suggest—and I shall amplify this—that the present arrangements are, in all the circumstances, the best practicable.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs said that he did not wish to see two University Grants Committees, but both he and the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs seemed to suggest that it might be a better arrangement to have a Scottish Minister, perhaps a Scottish Minister of State, who would be primarily responsible in some way. I put it to them mat the Secretary of State for Scotland keeps his overall responsibility for higher education, as he did before, except that the universities remain, also as before, under the U.G.C. This Committee advises the Secretary of State for Education and Science on all universities in Great Britain and, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland is in very close personal touch on all these questions of education as a whole. On the suggestion about colleges of education, put forward in Robbins, absolutely no decision has been taken on this whatever to date.
It has been stated that under the new arrangements for ministerial responsibility, Scottish universities might be tempted to follow the lead of English universities in certain academic developments in a way which would be out of line with the schools system in Scotland and which would be prejudicial to the latter's interest. I do not agree with this because the Scottish universities have in the past shown themselves alive to the quite different approach to secondary education in Scotland from that in England. The Robbins Report showed their continuing attachment to broad general degree courses based on non-specialised secondary education as the basic aim of Scottish education. All the signs to date are that the universities favour the retention of the higher grade of the Scottish Certificate of Education as the basic entrance qualification for universities.
It is not at all clear that ministerial control would be an effective or appropriate means of harmonising the development of schools and universities. The best way to keep policy in line is by other means than statutory measures or direct Ministerial interference with the development of individual universities. I suggest that this harmonsing can best be secured by arrangements for consultation between the universities and schools on subjects which are of common interest.
A great deal of this is already happening in Scotland. For instance, we have the new Examination Board and in the committees on the development of the curriculum in chemistry, physics, mathematics and so on there is a great deal of close consultation and working together. I do not think that enough is known about the measures which are taken by individual universities and departments within universities to keep in touch with teachers at senior secondary schools. Groups meet all the time to discuss individual subjects and university staffs go to schools in some areas to discuss with potential university entrants the problems of transition from school to university. Short-term fellowships are offered to teachers to spend some months in study at the university. I therefore suggest that it is along these lines that the two sectors of education can be brought closer together and we, for our part, will do everything in our power to encourage this.
The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs asked about the new university—
Before the noble Lady goes to that point, I follow what she has been saying—and I suppose that we shall just have to accept that the links between school and university will have to be forged in this way, and on those lines—but does she realise that we do not find any strength in the distinction that she makes between the Scottish situation and the English situation in this field?
I realise that the hon. Gentleman himself is anxious about the situation, and that is exactly why I went to some length to explain it. However, I would very much like to pass on, as I have just under a quarter of an hour in which to deal with the rest of the debate—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) likes to interrupt from a sitting position.
My right hon. Friend will be in a position to make an announcement about the location of the new university in Scot- land next week or, at the very latest, the week afterwards.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), very naturally, spent a good deal of time on the problem of teacher supply. She was absolutely right to do so, because the crucial factor in all advancement of our educational system is the degree to which the Government, the education authorities and the teachers work together. It can be said that in no country in the world does the teaching profession exercise as great an influence on the development of education as it does in Scotland.
The hon. Lady said that there is no easy solution to the shortage of teachers, and that is perfectly true. Earlier, my right hon. Friend went over the various measures that we have been taking, and will continue to take, to increase the supply of teachers. As he said, the raising of the school leaving age in 1970–71 undoubtedly makes the problem of teacher supply even more critical, and this has been rightly stressed by hon. Members on both sides. I do not intend to go over the same points that my right hon. Friend made, but I think that we have to be clear about the types of teacher whom we should be training to meet the requirements of those pupils—about 65 per cent. of any age group—who are not following courses leading to presentation for the Scottish Certificate of Education.
I suggest that this is the whole crux of the matter. We are in consultation with the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers, but it is perfectly obvious that we need the help in the very fullest measure, not only of the education authorities but also of teachers' associations. I should like to refer to the speech made by Mr. Kenneth Macdonald at the recent annual meeting of the E.I.S. just before he demitted office as President of the Institute. Talking of teacher supply, he said:
This may require … a rethinking of many previously accepted beliefs by us and by others.
He went on to talk of the important part which the teachers as a profession must play, and he called for
… practical wisdom in the consideration of this problem.
If I may say so, I would suggest that that is a very constructive and wise
remark from a leader of the teaching profession.
The hon. Lady quoted certain figures which came from the Fourth Report of the Departmental Committee on Supply. Those have now been overtaken because, without attempting to take into account the extra numbers which would be necessary with the raising of the school-leaving age, the Robbins Committee estimated that if its recommendations were carried out, as they will be, the overall shortage would fall to 300 by 1970, and that there would be a surplus of 3,800 teachers by 1975. On the assumption that some 4,000 teachers will be needed for the raising of the school-leaving age there will, of course, on Robbins estimates, be a shortage of 4,300 in 1970, but not of 7,000 as I think the hon. Lady said, and this should disappear at the present rate of recruitment by 1976, or 1977 at the latest.
Do the figures which the noble Lady has now quoted mean that consideration has been given to the lowering of the size of classes and to a great expansion in the provision for further education for those who leave school at the school-leaving age?
We have not at the moment come to any decision about altering the code on the size of school classes. We do not think that that would be responsible at the present time.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Carmichael), whose speech I regret I did not hear, advocated allowances for particular schools to try to meet this teacher shortage, but I understand that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) criticised the proposal to pay allowances in certain parts only of Glasgow and said that we ought to pay an extra £50 allowance to all Glasgow teachers. But there is a higher proportion of uncertificated teachers in Lanarkshire than there is in Glasgow and this shows the difficulty of confining an allowance to Glasgow alone. This is why the Scottish Joint Council has suggested, and we have accepted, that there should be a further examination of this problem to see whether any solution can be found.
There has been a good deal of criticism recently of the employment of uncertifi- cated teachers and I should like to give some of the facts. Last October, there were 2,425 uncertificated teachers in full-time employment, and of these almost 2,000 had some qualification or experience which fitted them for this work. About 1,050 of the 2,000 were mainly engaged in teaching subjects like music, homecraft, and technical and commercial subjects, and they were skilled practitioners of the subject or craft which they were teaching. Although they had had no professional training, many of them had a long experience of teaching. Over 300, although untrained and not graduates, had achieved the standard of general education testified by the possession of one or more degree passes or the equivalent.
Over 200 were graduates who had not had professional training, but many of these were experienced teachers. Some were from England and Wales, where graduates may be recognised as qualified teachers without training. Finally, there were some 350 trained teachers, although they had not obtained or were ineligible for a Scottish certificate. These included some who had recently arrived in Scotland and who had applied for but had not received certification. Some were young teachers from the Commonwealth who intended to spend only a year or so in Scotland.
There were also within this group non-graduate men teachers fully trained in England and Wales, but who, because they were men, were not eligible for certification in Scotland. There were also non-graduate women teachers trained south of the Border and not yet eligible for certification in Scotland. Only one-fifth of the uncertificated teachers had on paper qualifications below standard, but, while the Scottish certificate is a guarantee of competence to teach, and, obviously, it would be a good thing if all could have it, nevertheless it does not mean that all those who do not have a certificate are incompetent to teach. Indeed, the education authority often finds that they are by any standard teachers of quite considerable excellence.
Various hon. Members have raised the question of school building and investment. I would only say that the main figure—the annual public expenditure on education for which my right hon. Friend is responsible—was £135 million in 1963 against £43 million in 1951. This represents an increase from £8 per head to £26 per head of the population of Scotland, which is to say that in money terms we have trebled our expenditure over a period of 12 years. When we allow for the fall in the value of money, it is still true that there has been in real terms a doubling of our national expenditure on education.
Therefore, the increase even on school building year by year has been uninterrupted since 1951. In fact, we are now doing three times as much work in real terms as we were doing in 1951. I therefore say to those hon. Members who are concerned about their particular building problems that I certainly recognise that we must have an overall control of investment, but what we want now is to improve the rate of our building. We have gone very far with expenditure on our building, but we are a good deal slower in what we complete in Scotland than we are south of the Border.
Many hon. Members have made some most interesting points which I will study again in HANSARD and I will write to each one whom I have not been able to answer personally.
In conclusion, may I say that I have tried to show that the Government are
giving far more of their material resources to education, but we shall not get the value for the money we are going to spend unless all those in education believe in it and are ready to adapt their thinking and their methods to the fast changing world. As Robbins said, talking of higher education, though it applies to all:
Public opinion will not support the cost unless teachers are actuated by a high sense of professional obligation and students by a corresponding sense of obligation to work.
Above all, if there is any lesson to be drawn from experience in education in the past and in this debate it is, I suggest, the need for us all, in tackling the demand in this half of the twentieth century, to be swift to adapt to change. Despite the difficulties in education in Scotland, it is true that never before in the history of our country have the chances to learn been so great, and I am proud to have been a member of a Government which has played such a large share in it.
|Division No. 127.]||AYES||[9.59 p.m.|
|Albu, Austen||Fitch, Alan||Kelley, Richard|
|Alldritt, W. H.||Fletcher, Eric||Kenyon, Clifford|
|Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)||Foley, Maurice||King, Dr. Horace|
|Bacon, Miss Alice||Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)|
|Bellenger, Ht. Hon. F. J.||Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)|
|Bence, Cyril||Forman, J. C.||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Lubbock, Eric|
|Benson, Sir George||Galpern, Sir Myer||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Blackburn, F.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.||MacColl, James|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)||Gourlay, Harry||MacDermot, Niall|
|Bowles, Frank||Greenwood, Anthony||McKay, John (Wallsend)|
|Boyden, James||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Griffiths, W. (Exchange)||Mackie, John (Enfield, East)|
|Bray, Dr. Jeremy||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||McLeavy, Frank|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hart, Mrs. Judith||MacPherson, Malcolm|
|Carmichael Neil||Hayman, F. H.||Manuel, Archie|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Mareh, Richard|
|Chapman, Donald||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Millan, Bruce|
|Cliffe, Michael||Holman, Percy||Milne, Edward|
|Collick, Percy||Houghton, Douglas||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hoy, James H.||Monslow, Walter|
|Cronin, John||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Moody, A. S.|
|Crosland, Anthony||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Morris, John (Aberavon)|
|Crossman, R. H. S.||Hunter, A. E.||Mulley, Frederick|
|Cullen, Mrs. Alice||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||O'Malley, B. K.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Owen, Will|
|Darling, George||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Padley, W. E.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Irving, Sydney (Dartford)||Paget, R. T.|
|Delargy, Hugh||Janner, Sir Barnett||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Dempsey, James||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Parker, John|
|Diamond, John||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Doig, Peter||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Peart, Frederick|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Pentland, Norman|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Probert, Arthur||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank||Whitlock, William|
|Pursey, Cmdr. Harry||Spriggs, Leslie||Wilkins, W. A.|
|Rankin, John||Steele, Thomas||Willey, Frederick|
|Redhead, E. C.||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Robertson, John (Paisley)||Stonehouse, John||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)|
|Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)||Swain, Thomas||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Ross, William||Swingler, Stephen||Woof, Robert|
|Short, Edward||Symonds, J. B.||Wyatt, Woodrow|
|Silkin, John||Taverne, D.|
|Skeffington, Arthur||Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)||Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)||Mr. Lawson and Mr. McCann.|
|Small, William||Thorpe, Jeremy|
|Allason, James||Goodhew, Victor||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian||Gough, Frederick||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Anderson, D. C.||Green, Alan||Peel, John|
|Arbuthnot, Sir John||Gresham Cooke, R.||Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Pitt, Dame Edith|
|Barter, John||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Pounder, Rafton|
|Batsford, Brian||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)||Price, David (Eastleight)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Pym, Francis|
|Bidgood, John C.||Hastings, Stephen||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Biffen, John||Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel||Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter|
|Bingham, R. M.||Henderson, Sir John (Cathcart)||Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin|
|Bishop, Sir Patrick||Hendry, Forbes||Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Renton, Rt. Hon. David|
|Bossom, Hon. Clive||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Ridley, Hon. Nicholas|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Hirst, Geoffrey||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Box, Donald||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin||Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)|
|Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Holland, Philip||Roots, William|
|Braine, Bernard||Hopkins, Alan||Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Sharples, Richard|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Shepherd, William|
|Buck, Antony||Hughes-Young, Michael||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Iremonger, L.||Spearman, Sir Alexander|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Speir, Rupert|
|Campbell, Gordon||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)|
|Carr, Compton (Barons Court)||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Stodart, J. A.|
|Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Storey, Sir Samuel|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Kerr, Sir Hamilton||Summers, Sir Spencer|
|Chataway, Christopher||Kirk, Peter||Tapsell, Peter|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Kitson, Timothy||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Leavey, J. A.||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)|
|Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Teeling, Sir William|
|Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.||Linstead, Sir Hugh||Temple, John M.|
|Corfield, F. V.||Litchfield, Capt. John||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret|
|Costain, A. P.||Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)|
|Coulson, Michael||Lloyds, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Courtney, Cdr. Anthony||Longden, Gilbert||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn||Tilney, John (Wavertree)|
|Curran, Charles||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Currie, G. B. H.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Turner, Colin|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||McLaren, Martin||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.|
|Dance, James||McLean, Neil (Inverness)||Tweedsmuir, Lady|
|Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)||Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||McMaster, Stanley R.||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||Maddan, Martin||Walder, David|
|Doughty, Charles||Markham, Major Sir Frank||Walker, Peter|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Alec||Marlowe, Anthony||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Drayson, G. B.||Marshall, Sir Douglas||Ward, Dame Irene|
|du Cann, Edward||Marten, Neil||Webster, David|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Maude, Angus (Stratford-on-Avon)||Whitelaw, William|
|Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Mawby, Ray||Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)|
|Errington, Sir Eric||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Fisher, Nigel||Montgomery, Fergus||Wise, A. R.|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||More, Jasper (Ludlow)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Foster, Sir John||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher|
|Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Gammans, Lady||Neave, Airey||Worsley, Marcus|
|Gardner, Edward||Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael||Yates, William (The Wrekin)|
|Gibson Watt, David||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard|
|Giles, Read-Admiral Morgan||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)||Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)||Mr. Chichester-Clark and|