SCHOOL BUILDING AND TEACHER SHORTAGE

§ Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That this House regrets the further cuts in the school building programmes and the failure to take adequate steps to recruit sufficient teachers. This is not a debate about whether there should be an increase in our expenditure on education—the Government could not avoid that even if they wished to, and it is no part of my case to suggest it. We have only to appreciate that there are 1 million more children in our schools now than there were ten years ago and that there will be 1½ million more in the schools in ten years' time than there are now to realise that it is not only a question of numbers, but of standards, demands and needs, and that increasing expenditure on education is necessary for our national survival. Increased expenditure is not the issue: the issue is whether we are increasing it at a sufficient pace and whether we are devoting our resources to the right priorities.

No Tory Minister of Education has had such an opportunity as the right hon. Gentleman. What would Lord Eccles have given for the right hon. 1142 Gentleman's opportunities? That is a rhetorical question, because we know that that is why Lord Eccles went. But the right hon. Gentleman took office within sight of a General Election, and everyone knows that a Tory Cabinet turns a more favourable ear to education when there is a General Election in the offing. If I were to call the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. G. Lloyd) dynamic, he would probably challenge me to repeat it outside the House, but even the right hon. Gentleman, in the corresponding period before the 1959 General Election, introduced his White Paper, his five-year plan and his new drive for school building. The right hon. Gentleman the present Minister has an even greater opportunity, because this is education year, the year when the campaign for education is arousing interest throughout the country.

Surely, this was the Minister's opportunity. Even the Economist blurted out the other day: Sir Edward Boyle should already be twisting the Treasury's arm. What a hope! The right hon. Gentleman is the Treasury's Trojan horse at Curzon Street—that is why he is there. Only a year ago, in this House, he complacently tried to justify the completely unjustifiable. He tried to justify what the vice—chancellors—all of them—found profoundly disturbing" and described as devastating—the absolutely unprecedented rejection by the Government and the Treasury of the recommendations of the University Grants Committee. That rejection was, at any rate, made on grounds of economy, but now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is removing 1143 the ravages of his predecessor and boosting public expenditure what is the right hon. Gentleman doing?

The Minister of Education has the two major responsibilities of promoting school building and providing an adequate supply of teachers. What is he doing? He is cutting back the building programmes and treating the teaching profession with the contempt which the Government reserves for the academic profession. The moral is that if we have a Tory Government we cannot afford to have a weak Minister of Education—and that is not an exaggeration by a politician or an expression of political bias.

I could call in aid many examples, but let me call in aid Education, which no one can allege is a party political publication. It is, in fact, the official organ of the Association of Education Committees. In its article on the building programme, that journal began: Is Sir Edward Boyle really Lady Horsbrugh in disguise? His actively misleading treatment of the building programme suggests that, as during the régime of his noble forerunner, there is a substantial cut taking place under the smokescreen of deceptive statistics about approvals and starts. As I have said, his noble forerunner was acting under the duress of economic crisis, but the article concludes: This is a shabby little episode made the more shabby by the shifty way in which it has been put across. If Sir Edward cares for his image he must not put himself forward as Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd and Lady Horsbrugh rolled into one. Fighting for the building programme is the Minister's first duty. If he fails so badly when capital spending is rising, how will he do when the cold wind blows? The position of school building is simply that, in spite of the new schools built since the war. a large proportion of our children are enjoying their schooling, eighteen years after the end of the war, in appalling conditions. Even today there are in use 100 schools which were blacklisted and condemned as long ago as 1921.

The recent report on a survey made by the National Union of Teachers shows that one in seven of primary schools completely lacks any water sanitation, one in six has no hot water supply, only 40 per cent. have separate dining rooms, only 50 per cent. have playing fields, no more than 60 per cent. have an assembly hall, and only 41 per cent. a separate staff room.

1144 Let hon. Members try to visualise these conditions and picture the difficulties of teaching in them, and teaching, more often than not, over-sized classes. Then, bearing this factor in mind, let hon. Members realise that there will be 750,000 more children in these schools in 1970.

The position of the secondary schools is little better. We talk a great deal about science teaching. I notice that in its most recent survey the Association of Science Masters says that if we take only grammar schools and apply the standard applied by the Industrial Fund to independent schools only 1 per cent. satisfy their test in science laboratory standards. Against this background we have to regard the building programme today as inadequate. This is why, in spite of the economic crisis, we on this side of the House resisted cuts made at the expense of education.

First, there were the minor works, which were important because the improvement and modernisation of the old schools is so desperately needed. The value of minor works has gone up steadily over the years. In 1960–61, the value of minor works started was £21 million. No one for a moment, and least of all. Lord Eccles, regarded this as the ceiling. It was a satisfactory achievement, but it was only a stage towards far greater expenditure. The economic crisis came, and this was the particularly vulnerable part of education expenditure. It was halved and then more than halved. This was a mean and contemptible economy.

The present Minister, in a way which Education would describe as shabby and shifty, has created the impression that he has restored the minor works programme to £21 million. He has done nothing of the sort. He has brought it back to no more than £16 million. This takes no acount of the increased building costs and the greater needs caused by the fact that the programme was, interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

We have a five-year school building programme under which it is the Government's aim to get work costing £300 million started in that period. In 1961–62, actual works started were of the value of £66,400,000. The economic crisis came and Lord Eccles told us that he had been 1145 obliged to cut the programme back to £55 million, that is, £11 million less than the starts achieved in 1961–62. He informed the respective local education authorities and we on this side of the House pressed him to review the programme. He said that he could not do so and he could not increase the allocations made.

I therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman, as he then was, to provide the House with particulars of the programme. He gave us the particulars, but they did not add up to £55 million. They added up to £47 million, or £19 million short of what had been achieved in 1960–61. Lord Eccles, however, offered us one consolation. He said that he still believed that at the end of the fourth year he would have achieved four-fifths of the five-year programme and that we should have a £60 million allocation in the fifth year. Incidentally, he said that we should have this announcement in the late summer or the early autumn.

Lord Eccles went, the late summer went, the early autumn went, and we came to the late winter and with a flourish of trumpets the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister announced his school building programme. What was it? It was £55 million, not a penny more than Lord Eccles had been able to hold under the stress of an economic crisis. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was saying that he wished to promote public building, the Minister of Education, after all this procrastination and delay, could promise no more than his predecessor had been able to hold under a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was imposing savage economy cuts.

It is, however, far worse than this. What was adequate in 1958 is no longer adequate today. I should like to give the House an illustration. We all welcome the encouraging trend of children staying on at school after the school-leaving age, but this is happening in far greater measure than it was happening in 1958. Again the position is far worse because building costs have gone up sharply since then. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if we take into account building costs and cost limits the total sum would not be £300 million. He estimates that this is a programme amounting to a cost of £344 million. I do not accept this figure. I believe that 1146 it is an underestimate, but if we accept it the programme which the right hon. Gentleman has announced is not £5 million short, but £49 million short, of the programme which the Government announced as long ago as 1958. Worse still, all assumptions of the 1958 programme have gone.

When the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry as Parliamentary Secretary he spoke with some ebullience. He said he did not think that there would be unemployment among teachers in the mid-1960s, or that there would not then be a surplus of teachers. The Government were basing their programmes and assumptions on the belief that the child population in our schools was static. We know that the Government were l million or ¾ million out in their estimates. We must make provision for this in these building programmes, but even if we disregarded these factors the right hon. Gentleman has not even matched the targets laid down as long ago as 1958.

Again, just as with Lord Eccles, having waited for months, and having pressed the right hon. Gentleman to give us particulars of the allocations, we find that they do not total £55 million. They do not even add up to the £47 million of Lord Eccles's programme. They total only £42 million. The local authorities submitted programmes totalling, according to particulars given by the right hon. Gentleman, £187 million and probably a good deal more. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had previously indicated that it was more. Against that we have this pitiful allocation of £42 million.

Let us look at the list. We find no fewer than 13 counties which have been told by the Minister that they have no need at all for new school building. They have been given no allocation at all. More than 30 county boroughs have been told that they shall have no school building whatsover. I name a few: Blackburn, Burnley, Derby, Dewsbury, Halifax, Huddersfield, Smethwick and West Ham. Can hon. Members envisage that in these boroughs, heavily concentrated industrial boroughs, there is no place whatever for new school building?

§ Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Will my hon. Friend mention the fact 1147 that there are six counties in Wales which have been told that they shall not have a single school building next year?

§ Mr. Willey

What my hon. Friend says is quite right. I mentioned the 13 counties. The fact that six of them are Welsh shows how badly the Welsh have suffered. They have suffered badly, probably, because of the particular regard which they pay to education.

I mention three boroughs in particular— the right hon. Gentleman will know why I do so—Gateshead, Preston and Worcester. None of these three has received any allocation at all. In the Minister's White Paper top priority was accorded to the reorganisation to the all-age schools. These three boroughs are among the four worst authorities in the country for all-age schools, yet they do not get a single new school building from the Minister.

Let us look at the list a little further. I take the example of Yorkshire. It is not true, unfortunately, that every local education authority in Yorkshire is Labour. They are Labour and Tory. But all the Yorkshire education authorities subscribed to a resolution and sent a telegram to the Minister expressing their deep concern that these very severe reductions should be made at this time against the background of increased costs and the background of the reductions already made in the previous year's programme. We know, of course, that these authorities had reason to feel aggrieved. Almost without exception, they did not get even 50 per cent. of the work which they had declared themselves willing and able to carry out and which they believed to be necessary to implement the Government's policy.

I turn now to London. London was encouraged by the Government when they produced their White Paper, and it said that to carry out the Government's intentions it was willing and able to carry out the necessary programme amounting to £4 million each year. In fact, over the past three years, London has carried out programmes averaging £3,200,000. But it is an interesting index of the increase of school building costs that, although the programmes have averaged in cost £3,200,000, not a single programme is in volume greater than the originally sanctioned programme of 1148 £2,400,000. Lord Eccles cut that to £1¾ million. What has the present Minister done? Has he given London an allocation of £3,200,000? Has he given London an allocation of £2,400,000, or has he even given London the allocation of £1¾ million which Lord Eccles gave? The right hon. Gentleman has given London an allocation of £877,000, about half what Lord Eccles gave London under the duress of economic crisis.

Now I come nearer to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I have said that Derby has had no allocation whatever. The Director of Education for Derbyshire has published the figures for the county. In 1960–61, Derbyshire had an allocation of £830,000. In 1961–62, it had an allocation of £1 million, and in 1962–63 it had an allocation of £844,000. Along came Lord Eccles with his economy axe and Derbyshire got an allocation of £756,000. But what has the present Minister done? He has given Derbyshire an allocation of £446,000.

Finally, I turn to my own constituency. Sunderland, with its heavy unemployment, is in the heart of the unemployment area of the North. In Sunderland, we have had a massive school building programme since the end of the war. But—this is why I began as I did—we have to look at these things realistically. It is still the fact, in spite of the new schools, that one in every three children in Sunderland is being taught in a school which was built before the beginning of the century. About half our children in the secondary schools are being taught in schools built before the First World War. This is the measure of the neglect of the Tory Government before the war.

I have said before in the House that what oppresses me in education are the two nations of school children, those who go to the new schools and those who go to the old We could not find this situation more dramatically exposed than it is in Sunderland. We have the new schools all on the periphery, on the new housing estates, and in the heart of the town we have disgraceful and appalling slum schools. This is a condition, of course, which we can find repeated in almost every industrial urban area in the country.

§ Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman when 1149 he speaks of his own constituency, but does he not agree that this is a widespread problem? In my constituency, for instance, there is one primary school building which was built in 1851.

§ Mr. Willey

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his help. I do not suggest that this is peculiar to any particular place. It applies throughout the whole country.

The Minister, probably anticipating the interest which he knew I should take, and have taken, in these programmes, issued a Press release which made a special point of what his Department had done for Sunderland. He pointed out that, in fact, Sunderland has the largest allocation of any education authority in the North-East except for the counties of Durham and Northumberland. This is absolutely true. But what is equally true is that the allocation we have received from the right hon. Gentleman is the smallest allocation we have had for five years and it is £200,000 less than the allocation we got two years ago.

§ The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle)

Since the hon. Gentleman is making a point about Sunderland, and has referred to a large number of authorities which are to receive less in 1964–65 than in 1963–64, I should point out that my figures show that Sunderland received £49,000 in 1963–64 and is to receive £320,000 in 1964–65.

§ Mr. Wiley

What the Minister overlooks is that the £49,000 allocation was so ridiculous and contemptible that his predecessor immediately revised it after I had raised the matter in the House.

In view of his ill-success last year, I advised Lord Eccles, the previous Minister, to stop being pushed around from pillar to post by the Treasury and to stop wasting his time in the Cabinet. I do not know whether he took this advice to heart, or whether it was the Government who thought that he was too tough a Minister of Education. But, however much Lord Eccles failed, he did not fail so miserably as has the present Minister, who frustrated and exasperated the University Grants Committee last year. He upset the universities, and it will take them a long time to recover. Now he has frustrated and upset—I say this for the benefit of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock)—every education authority in the country.

1150 Let us now turn to the alarming question of the teacher shortage. No one should be in any doubt about how grim is the teacher supply situation. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with that because that is what he himself has said. But it is no good saying it and not accepting responsibility for it. The responsibility is that of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. This is the result of past indifference and neglect.

I remind the House of what was said in July, 1956, by Lord Eccles, when he was Minister. He told the House: It is now too late to build any more training colleges. They would come into service only in 1958, and their first students to enter the schools would pass out of those colleges only in 1960, by which date the school population will be declining …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956; Vol. 557, c. 445.] In the event, there were 300.000 more children in the schools when the time came. What disturbs me far more than this massive miscalculation is that there was no sense of urgency for the Government to deal with the problem of oversized classes. This was the great opportunity. If the Government had taken that opportunity, they would have failed, but they would nevertheless have prevented the chaos which we are now facing.

The problem of oversized classes is the biggest source of social inequality and the greatest bar to equality of opportunity that there is. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with that, because those are words which he has used. But it is no good saying that without accepting responsibility. The Minister was Parliamentary Secretary in 1958 when the Government rejected the very cautious advice of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers, which recommended that 16,000 more places should be provided in the training colleges.

That is why we have oversized classes today, eighteen years after the war. We have had no policy from the Government, but only a makeshift provision from year to year. It is incredible. One would think that in this country children sprang from the womb five years old with their school caps on. The birth rate began to increase and to increase very sharply in 1955, and it has gone on increasing sharply ever since, but the Government have not taken account of that increase.

1151 When I undertook the responsibilities of the Opposition's spokesman on education, and opened my first debate on the subject in 1961, the facts were stark and obvious—the birthrate figures, the oversized classes, the wastage rates among teachers. Lord Eccles was kind enough to comment that I had made an interesting speech. He said that he had believed that in 1965 there would be 6 million children in the schools, but that he now thought that there would be 7 million. Having made that interesting observation, he said that he could not see how he could go any further in the training of teachers. He said that the Government were awaiting the Robbins Report, but nothing was done.

We returned to the issue of the crisis in teacher supply last summer. The then Parliamentary Secretary said "We had estimated that the school population would be 7 million and remain at that figure; but, oh dear me! we were wrong. We understand that it will be at least 7¾ million in 1970 and 8½ million by 1980." Because that was the second occasion on which we had raised the subject, the Government had to produce something. They produced a couple of "gimmicks"—auxiliary service and short-term commission. What has the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about those this afternoon? They were produced dramatically as the solution, but nothing has been heard of them since. They were quietly buried until we had another debate on education.

The Minister himself has said that this problem is the biggest single source of social inequality in Britain. He gave me the figures recently.There are million children in primary schools in classes of more than 40; there are nearly 2½ million in oversized classes—and those are classes which are oversized by pre—war standards and those are the figures for January, 1962. Why cannot we have the figures for January, 1963? What is the good of the Department having a computor if we have to wait all this time for the figures? We want the figures for 1963, because this is the year of intermission.

The appalling figures for 1962 which the right hon. Gentleman has given me are the optimum figures. From now on the position will deteriorate rapidly and will be worse next year than this. The 1152 Government estimate that there are 5,000 fewer first appointments in primary schools this year than last year. We know the wastage rate of teachers and we know that we began the year with 2,500 fewer teachers in the primary schools than last year. By a singular feat of social engineering, it so happens that this year when we have a shortfall of teachers, is the first year of the new bulge coming into the schools.

The crisis of teacher shortage which is facing our schools is not just a question of the numbers of teachers. It is also a matter of the qualifications of the teachers. As I pointed out in our last debate, whereas 78 per cent, of the teachers in the grammar schools are graduate teachers only 17 per cent. in secondary modern schools are graduate teachers. The disparity is almost as great as that between elementary schools and grammar schools before the war. It is no good talking about parity of esteem and equality of opportunity if this disparity exists. Among the graduate teachers there is an acute and desperate shortage of teachers of mathematics and science.

We can deal with this problem only it we have a policy. What has the right hon. Gentleman to say about the longterm aspects of the eighth Report of the National Advisory Council? What has he to say in advance of the Robbins Report? We know that the Robbins Report will say that there is an appalling inadequacy in the provision of higher education. We have to act now. We ought to have acted years ago.

When the right hon. Gentleman says, as he will say, that the Government are waiting for the Robbins Report, I remind him that we are still awaiting the implementation of the Crowther Report, which is very germane to the issue of higher education. We will not have the numbers we need in higher education until we raise the school-leaving age. We will not get the numbers in full-time education at 18 until everyone is educated up to 16.

The truth is that the Government have no plan and have given us no constructive response. What they have given has been too little, too late, and too begrudgingly. The right hon. Gentleman recently expressed his great personal pleasure at announcing further places 1153 in the training college—I do not know how many we have had. We welcome the increase, but I join with Education in saying that the Minister's statements are very shifty and shabby. He knows that he cannot do this on £7 million.

We are facing a desperate shortage. In the light of this shortage, it is a great tragedy that last year 2,000 or more fully qualified young people failed to embark on training for teaching in the training colleges and that several thousand failed to get into university. The tragedy will be greater, because we know that this year the position will be worse and that next year it will be much worse. Yet this still evokes no plan and no response from the Government. All that we have had is makeshift arrangements year after year.

When I heard about the right hon. Gentleman's plan to disrupt the Burnham Committee and to destroy the negotiating machinery which has been built up over the years, I thought that this was gigantic stupidity, the peevishness of a Billy Bunter dictator. But I have had second thoughts. I do not think that that is the explanation. I think that this is the exasperation of a man not big enough for his job. No one would gainsay, least of all myself, the size of this job. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to escape his responsibility by deliberately causing a diversion even at the cost of disrupting negotiating machinery which has been laboriously and patiently built up over the years.

Not only will the right hon. Gentleman fail, but his failure will cause a volume of protest which will join the increasing volume of discontent which will sweep not only him but his Government from office.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway)

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: recognising the continuing problem of staffing the schools and the difficult physical conditions under which many schools still have to work, welcomes the notable progress made with the recruitment and supply of teachers and the impementation of the school building programme set out in the White Paper of 1958: and notes with approval the Government action in devoting a steadily rising proportion 1154 of the national resources to the public system of education". The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) uses such a quantity of black in the picture that he paints of the education service that it is sometimes hard to distinguish any likeness between the picture and the reality. I would never suggest that his speeches were other than works of art, but his effort today was more in the nature of a thoroughly gloomy abstract than an attempt at representational painting. His general charge—and, in essence, it is a generalised charge that he makes—is that we do not spend enough money, that we are starving the service, and that we give to education a miserably low priority. I think that that is his charge, because throughout he argued that inadequacies resulted from insufficient expenditure.

That is an odd charge, as I hope to show, to make of the Government at this time, and it is made all the odder by the quarter from which it comes, whether one considers the record of hon. Members opposite in office or their present attitudes. One would never guess from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that Britain spends more per head on education than almost any Western European country.

§ Mr. Stephen Swingler (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

Who says that?

§ Mr. Chataway

The U.N.E.S.C.O. statistics. They may be checked by hon. Members who wish to check them.

Before turning to general questions of priorities and gross expenditure, I should like to give a little more of the detail of the two main subjects of the debate —teacher supply and school building.

I take first the question of the supply of teachers, because it is here—in securing for the schools enough teachers of the right quality—that my right hon. Friend places his first emphasis. In common with, I think, every other developed nation, we have today a situation, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in which the demand for teachers substantially exceeds the supply. Overlarge classes, particularly in some of the primary schools, as the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have said, are a big hindrance to equality of opportunity. They place a burden on teachers, an obstacle in the way of many children's full development, and undoubtedly involve a waste 1155 of talent, particularly of talent which is less than first-class.

It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have embarked on, and we are now in the middle of, an expansion of teacher training colleges which is not only without precedent in this country, but has few parallels, if any, anywhere else, Our prime source of supply of new teachers lies in the teacher training colleges. There are now 142 general and specialist colleges, plus four concerned with technical teacher training. They are of critical importance.

As the House knows, we embarked upon a major expansion of the training colleges in 1958. It seemed to me that some of the hon. Gentleman's criticisms —I do not say all of them—would have required estimates from the Registrar-General or from my right hon. Friend's predecessor as to the way in which the birthrate was likely to move, which seems to me unreasonable. The expansion which we embarked on in 1958, half of which was completed last year, was designed to add 24,000 permanent training places. We have supplemented this effort by keeping on certain premises due to be given up, by opening, as we are in the process of doing, a number of day units, some of them in improvised premises, sometimes attached to existing colleges and in other cases as separate colleges.

I draw particular atention to the special day provision which has been made in the larger centres of population for older students. There are now eight day colleges specially catering for their needs, and they are proving a great success. With all these measures to date and the good use to which the colleges are already putting their accommodation, the total number in the colleges has already risen from 28,000 in 1957–58 to 48,000 this year. Of course, much more accommodation is yet in the pipeline. We were, therefore, able to look forward to a total training college population of 65,000 by 1966–67.

But we have not been content with that, and, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North cursorily mentioned, my right hon. Friend recently announced the Government's decision to accept in full the recommendation of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers that we should aim to 1156 raise total numbers in the training colleges to no fewer than 80,000 by the end of the decade. This is by any standards a very large undertaking indeed. It will involve something approaching a tripling of numbers in twelve years—less if the time taken in planning is omitted—and I think that the House would be interested if I dwelt for a few minutes on some of the issues involved in this exercise.

In carrying out this further expansion, my right hon. Friend has laid particular emphasis on the need to derive the greatest possible advantage from investment by intensive use of the places provided. We have gained much experience of these possibilities as colleges have responded to the pressures of numbers already put upon them, and we believe that still more can be done. Various methods have been canvassed by the National Advisory Council and others. One of them—the possibility of keeping a college open all the year round—has been mentioned in debate before.

My right hon. Friend hopes that there will be a readiness to experiment, but has taken the view that the precise method to be adopted is for colleges themselves to determine in the light of their own particular circumstances, and they are, of course, rightly anxious to preserve the quality of training and to avoid undue pressures upon the students. At the moment, it looks as if the most useful and most fruitful methods will be found in some expansion of the size of teaching groups, still more intensive use of lecture space, and an extension of the formal teaching day.

Although more students will be accommodated in lodgings, or living at home, the colleges will make a great effort to ensure that they share to the full in the communal life of the college. If these measures are to have full effect—and this could be considerable—there will undoubtedly be cases where selective additions to accommodation will be needed, whether in teaching, library space, or communal accommodation, so that the whole may be used to the full, and we expect to devote many of the further resources that are available to projects of that kind.

We also hope to use this opportunity to increase certain colleges to a considerable size. It has been the intention to 1157 expand the size of these colleges. In 1958–59, there were only six colleges with 400 students. Already, there are as many as 47 of that size. We hope now to take this process further both as a result of intensive use and also by building up a significant number of colleges to the 1,000 mark.

Throughout this expansion, emphasis is still placed on training for the primary schools, but as total numbers go up increases will be possible in secondary training. In particular, we shall ensure that specialist provision which is made in science and practical subject is used to the full. The colleges have offered every co-operation in these efforts and the implications of expansion to so large a total are far-reaching for them, as the House will appreciate. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the way in which they are tackling a gigantic job.

The expansion comes at a time when there has been marked improvement in the qualifications of candidates entering the teacher-training colleges.

§ Mr. G. Thomas

There is not enough room at the universities.

§ Mr. Chataway

I would not contest that the pressure upon university places has had a good deal to do with this.

Equally, I would expect that even with the rapid expansion of university provision, we shall be able to maintain a much higher level of qualification in entrants to teacher-training colleges than has been the case in the past. Nearly 40 per cent. of those entering last September had two A-level passes. This will mean that the teacher-training colleges will undoubtedly take their place with the universities and the technical institutions as one of the three main strands of our higher education system. The momentum of academic development which is now being generated should steadily increase.

The Robbins Committee is considering the precise directions and methods by which that should occur. One thing, however, which seems plain already is the need for a better opportunity than now exists for students at training colleges who so wish, and who can, to go on to get degrees and similar qualifications.

We are, therefore, now engaged upon the fashioning of the long-term structure of the training college system. I find it difficult to understand what the hon. 1158 Member for Sunderland, North might have had in mind when he talked about the absence of a plan concerning the training colleges. Here, surely, we are embarked upon a long-term plan of the utmost significance and the scale am', speed of this operation cannot leave much doubt of the urgency of the efforts now being made to increase teacher supply.

What of the immediate prospects? This year of intermission, when there was less output from the teacher-training colleges because of the introduction of the three-year course in 1960, obviously presented considerable problems for the colleges. Many feared that they would not be able to admit nearly as many as in previous years, but by making a great effort they did even better and took well over 17,000 students, an achievement which deserves thanks and admiration.

Admittedly, about 800 good or acceptable candidates and over 2,000 borderline candidates were unsuccessful. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North accuses my right hon. Friend of making slipshod statements, yet he says that 2,000 good and acceptable candidates were refused entry. That simply is not the case. The figures have been published and are available.

§ Mr. Wiley

What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "good" and "borderline"? Incidentally, he is quarrelling with the Minister's figure of about 1,000. I took my figure of 2,000 from the Central Clearing House figures.

§ Mr. Chataway

These categories are known. They are made by the Clearing House. I am not saying that all the borderline candidates would not be accepted for a teacher training college if there were space. All I am saying is that the figures as the hon. Member presented them were wrong. Eight hundred definitely good or acceptable candidates were refused entry and a further 2,000 borderline candidates also failed to gain admission.

§ Mr. James Boyden (Bishop Auckland)

How many borderline candidates applied for admission but failed to pursue their application for a variety of reasons which could have been overcome if the Ministry had had a more friendly attitude towards their application?

§ Mr. Chataway

That is another question, which requires a breakdown of the numbers who withdrew for a host of reasons, either because their qualifications were clearly inadequate, because they were going to university, or for many other reasons. I am not saying that all the borderline candidates would have failed to gain entry had there been sufficient places, but many of these people were young enough to stay on at school for another year and to try for a place again next September.

It is still too early to predict the size of the colleges' intake next time. There are more applications, both men and women, than ever before, but, on the other hand, many more places will be available. We shall have completed a further section of the current expansion programme for 24,000 places and there will be at least four new temporary day colleges and a number of day units attached to existing colleges. These are intended mainly for girls coming straight from school and when fully in use, they should be able to provide about 1,600 places. All these have been found since the early summer of last year. I should like to thank all the local education authorities who searched their areas to find them.

I hope, too, that many colleges will be able, even in the coming September, to make a good initial response to the plans which my right hon. Friend has put before them, and which I have just described, for more intensive use of their premises. Thus, although it is too early to give precise figures, I am confident that the colleges will surpass all their previous records.

The year of intermission, with few recruits coming from the training colleges, presented difficulties also for the schools. Here, too, there was a great deal of apprehension last summer. In the event, although there has been a temporary decline of about 1 per cent. in the nation's full-time teaching force, the schools are weathering the current academic year much more successfully than many had feared, helped by a vigorous recruitment of part-time teachers—whose numbers are 4,000 higher this year compared with an increase of 3,000 the year before—and of married women returning. They have been helped, too, by teachers postponing retirement for a year and, I admit, by an increase in the number of temporary 1160 teachers, although this was only to be expected this year.

Now, the schools can look forward to an increasing flow from the training colleges. The immediate increase in intakes to the colleges will have a welcome effect within the next few years and as the expansion programme gathers momentum, its benefits will be increasingly felt by the schools towards the end of this decade and in the 1970s.

It is true, as will be seen from the latest issue of the Ministry's statistics, that our estimates of school population have already had to be revised upwards compared with those of the seventh Report of the National Advisory Council. We must now reckon to have another¼million children in school in 1980 and there is reason to expect that the figure may need to be further increased. It is hardly surprising that adjustments of this kind have to be made as further evidence accumulates of the trend for young women to marry earlier, to have their families sooner and to have larger families, too.

There are two other main sources besides the training colleges from which the schools can expect reinforcements. Recent evidence about the progress so far achieved in persuading married women to come back to the schools and the prospects for a special continuing influx of these teachers are encouraging. Figures about the progress of the campaign to attract women back to the schools have been given to the House from time to time. Now that the campaign, which was launched in February, 1961, has completed its second year, hon. Members will be glad to know that the rate of recruitment in the second year totalled nearly 5,600, which was a real advance on the very promising figure of 4.700 achieved during the campaign's first year.

The fact that the campaign has sustained its momentum for two years in this way is encouraging. The evidence now available about the prospect for the future is even more important. Although the Nuffield Survey on women and teaching is not yet complete, we have been allowed by Professor Kelsall to see the valuable and significant information which he has collected and from which certain provisional conclusions have already been drawn.

1161 This information suggests, for example, that we can expect at least half of the young women who leave the schools early in their teaching career to return when their family commitments allow, and that, on average, they are likely to return about ten years after leaving the service. It seems that the intention to return to teaching is most marked amongst the younger teachers.

These are good omens for the future. We were rather surprised by the significant number of women who return while their children are still under school age. This was one of the considerations which influenced my right hon. Friend in making his recent announcement in the House about the provision of nursery schools for the children of teachers who wish to return to the schools. That is one example—and an important one—of the ways in which we are buttressing our policy with research.

I have already referred to the growth in the number of part-time teachers. Married women account very largely for this development. About two in every five of the married women returning in the last two years have taken part-time posts, at least initially. Professor Kelsall's data confirmed, as one would expect, a continuing preference among a high proportion of married women for part-time service.

The employment of part-time teachers on a large scale is clearly one aspect of the general staffing situation to which the schools will need to adapt themselves. Many authorities and many schools have learned to employ part-time teachers extremely efficiently. I do not underestimate the difficulties there are in this, but I am quite sure that the success of some areas can be followed by others.

The supply of teachers of mathematics and science was debated in the House on the Christmas Adjournment and, of course, the shortage of these teachers continues to be serious. I referred then to the steering committee which brought together representatives of the universities, schools and the Ministry to consider the problem of securing an adequate supply of graduates in mathematics. This committee, among other work, has secured information about the number of students admitted to honours courses in mathematics at the universities, and it is clear that these numbers are increasing very 1162 rapidly. The universities seem likely to produce roughly twice as many of these graduates this year as they are doing in the middle of the 1950s and admissions to earlier years of the course show that the trend is being well maintained.

From all these sources, the flow of teachers is broadening. From the university expansions we can expect greater numbers. Married women are returning to the schools in larger numbers. The whole scale of teacher-training provision is undergoing little short of a revolution.

Now I turn to the subject of school building and, first, I must comment on the word "cuts" that appears in the Opposition Motion and with which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made great play. He knows that it is thoroughly misleading invariably to describe the system by which we decide the projects which are to be included in any programme as the Ministry "cutting" the programmes of local education authorities.

§ Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

What else is it?

§ Mr. Chataway

I will explain to the hon. Lady. The procedure is probably not widely understood outside the House. One gathers that from reading local newspapers. Perhaps I may explain it briefly for those who may be under a genuine misconception.

Each local education authority may submit a list of projects from which, after comparison with the needs of other areas, and bearing in mind the resources he has available, my right hon. Friend selects those that are to go into the programme for any one year. He does not object to authorities submitting lists of projects which they know to be larger and more expensive than can be authorised, because it gives him a broader picture of their needs and may facilitate the right selection. But there can be few authorities in any year which expect to get every project that they have submitted included in the programme.

If, in some year, every project of every authority were to be so included—perhaps by calling a complete halt to hospital or house building—I think that there would be quite a large number of authorities and ratepayers who would be very alarmed. I hope, therefore, that in this debate we may have a rational 1163 discussion which does not start from the belief that projects submitted by local education authorities add up in total to a sort of national plan which the Minister then proceeds, as a result of a change of policy, to cut.

§ Mrs. Slater

Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that every local authority deliberately puts in more than it needs?

§ Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South)

Of course they do and have done for years.

§ Mrs. Slater

I said "every local authority". Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that all authorities have not really considered their problems? Is he aware that I have here a list of my local authority's requirements for the last five years and of the schools which have been struck out by the Minister each year and never returned, but which we consider to be of vital importance to our education programme? He suggests that this is not a cut, but no local authority will believe that it is not.

§ Mr. Chataway

Perhaps the hon. Lady will develop that when she comes to make her speech.

The fact is that this is the procedure which has been followed by successive Governments. Inevitably, it is the Government's job to judge between the priorities in different areas and the only way in which one could avoid having a cut in the sense in which hon. Members opposite use the word is if every local education authority were able to determine the size of its own building programme. If that were the case, however, I do not believe that there would be many local education authorities which would submit building programmes of the size they do now.

This is no criticism of them. It is helpful if they submit a wide range of projects so that they can be compared with the needs of other areas and so that my right hon. Friend has a broad picture. This is just a thought on the procedural aspect. I do not believe that it helps towards a rational discussion to proceed on the assumption that this represents "cutting" by my right hon. Friend.

§ Mr. George Brown (Belper)

Can we apply that to the case of Derby County Borough? The local education authority put up some schemes to the Minister 1164 and he struck the whole lot out. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that was not a cut in the borough programme? Does he say that there is no need in Derby for any new schools?

§ Mr. Chataway

I am not saying that Derby will not need any new schools. All I say is that, in allocating the resources that we have in any one year, it is necessary to make choices between different areas. There are 50 local education authorities which have larger allocations this year than they had last year. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North does not add to his argument greatly by picking out local education authorities and implying that they are entirely representative.

§ Mr. Willey

rose—

§ Mr. Chataway

No, I must get on.

Now I come to consider the figures for 1964–65 building programme. This is the last for the 1960–65 quinquennium, and will complete the £300 million building programme announced in the Government's 1958 White Paper. The figure for 1964–65 has been announced by my right hon. Friend as not less than £55 million, the figure for 1963–64.

But as in the previous year, the total of new projects announced to the authorities is less than the figure for authorised starts. It is around this difference that much discussion has centred. The hon. Gentleman has frequently ignored the difference between programmes, between starts and between work done. He compares the figures with gay abandon. Today, he tried several times to make capital out of the difference existing between them. I will explain as clearly as I am able the reasons for the disparity between the two figures.

If every project started in the year it was programmed to start, there would be no difference. But for a variety of reasons mostly unavoidable—difficulties of site acquisitions, shortage of architectural staff and tendering problems—some projects start late. Therefore, when fixing the total value of new projects announced to the authorities, we have to take account not only of the starts authorised for that year, but the value of the projects likely to be carried over from the previous years, and any 1165 rise in the value of those projects compared with the original estimates.

The five-year programme has to be looked at as a whole. In the first two years the Government deliberately announced programmes somewhat in excess of the authorised starts so as to "prime the pump" and move to a higher level of investment quickly and smoothly. We did the same in the case of the five-year further education building programme from 1956 to 1961.

§ Mr. Willey

I concentrated on starts, so that there would be a consistent comparison throughout my argument. I took the year and gave the starts, which amounted to £66,400,000, because this showed what the local authorities could do. This was the whole point. If they could start work totalling this sum, they should do the same in the year we are now discussing.

§ Mr. Chataway

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the figure for 1961–62. In considering what starts are possible there are a number of other factors which have to be taken into account. The large school building programmes of 1960–61 and 1961–62 will cost a great deal more than was originally allowed to them. That is mainly due to rises in cost limits which came after the announcement of the programmes and increases in the cost of new construction. In consequence the programmes of new projects for the last two years have had to be below the starts authorised. But there is no doubt that work done in the five-year period will amount to the full £300 million.

§ Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

Will the hon. Gentleman say what allowance has been made over the five-year period for the increase in costs to which he has referred, of the £300 million in 1958? We ought to know exactly what the Government have in mind.

§ Mr. Chataway

I am coming to that point.

The hon. Lady's argument is that in view of the rising costs the Government ought to announce an increase in order to ensure that a quinquennial programme is carried through which is worth £300 million. It would be very satisfactory always to be able to avoid the effects of inflation in that way. It would be even 1166 more satisfactory from our point of view to have had work done over the five years to the value of £300 million at 1958 prices—the year of the publication of the White Paper.

Those who have supported the Government in resisting and limiting inflation may, with greater justification, complain of its ill-effects. But it is not always possible to compensate for rising costs in that way. Projects programmed in this instance will total fully £300 million over the five years.

No final decision has been taken on this 1964–65 programme, but any further increases in authorised starts will have to await the outcome of the Government's review of capital investment and the future load on the building industry. In any case, the effect of the 1960–65 building programmes will be very substantial. The programme will greatly alter conditions in which most of our schools have to function.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the N.U.T. survey. A survey is also being undertaken by my right hon. Friend. Both will refer to the condition of schools in the summer of 1962. Previous to 1960 nearly all school building resources had to be devoted to providing roofs over heads. There was very little if any capital devoted to straight improvements. Now there is £200 million for straight improvements in the programme up to 1965 and, therefore, one may look for striking and recognisable improvements in standards particularly in secondary schools in the next few years.

§ Mr. G. Thomas

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell me what proportion of that money is to go to areas which has been refused any new schools, like the six Welsh counties? What proportion for improvement is going to them?

§ Mr. Chataway

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman expects to obtain that figure from me at the moment. But I will get him the figure.

Alongside that quantitative expansion continued efforts are being made to achieve better schools at a more economic cost. I should not like the House to think that the emphasis is purely on science, or that the only problem considered is that of science. A long-term effort is needed to modernise our schools 1167 and there is a firm basis of past achievement and experience and current work from which to tackle that task.

I have outlined the Government's action in both spheres covered by the Opposition's Motion. In both the true picture is one of rapid expansion. This is questioned by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). If he will look at the figures, I think that he will find that he cannot come to any other conclusion. The charge of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is that we do not spend sufficient money. He made virtually no other serious criticism of our policy. I understand that it is not his case that there is wasteful expenditure in any direction, or that in any educational field our resources could be better distributed, or that we have the balance between capital and current expenditure wrong. None of these charges is made by the hon. Gentleman. His professed concern is solely with gross expenditure.

Let me deal briefly with gross expenditure. What has happened? In 1952–53 education in England and Wales, excluding the universities, cost £404 million. In 1957–58, it cost £663 million. In 1962–63, the figure is over £1,000 million and next year it will probably be £1,088 million. These figures show a steady expansion in the first six years of Conservative Government which has gathered momentum since 1957, and when every allowance is made for inflation it is still the case that the total education expenditure has almost doubled in real terms—

§ Mr. Lubbock

Will the hon. Gentleman give the figures in real terms?

§ Mr. Chataway

If the hon. Member is asking me to do the conversion in my head, he overestimates my abilities. But the hon. Gentleman can well see that it represents double in real terms. Perhaps he would prefer it in proportions of the gross national product.

§ Mr. Lubbock

Yes.

§ Mr. Chataway

Of course, if the nation is better off today than in 1951, one would expect a higher proportion of the national resources to be devoted to education.

§ Mr. Lubbock

indicated assent.

§ Mr. Chataway

I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

From 3.1 per cent. of the gross national product in 1951 the figure has risen to 3.8 per cent. in 1957 and 4.7 per cent this year. It will probably be 4.9 per cent. in 1963–64, which is little short of a rise of 2 per cent. of the gross national product. One wonders what precentage of the gross national product hon. Gentlemen opposite believe should be devoted to education.

Where else are the necessary cuts to be imposed? Should hospitals or housing receive a smaller proportion of the national resources? Hon. Members opposite have made it clear that they would spend no less on defence, although they would spend it differently. It is not clear that they wish to see a larger proportion of the national product being expended by local government and the Central Government.

They cannot ride out this question by talking about growth, because it seems to hon. Members on this side of the House extremely unlikely not only that there would be any growth under a Labour Government, but that even if a Labour Government were able to achieve the N.E.D.C. 4 per cent. rate of growth, rather than the present 2½ per cent.—and their proposition is that if they are able to achieve a 4 per cent. rate of growth they will devote 4 per cent. more, in real terms, to education each year—this makes the criticisms of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North look hollow, because expenditure on education over the past five years has improved by 5.7 per cent. in real terms.

The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) hopes to find a complete answer in the increase of the number of children, but that increase has been about one-sixth over the past decade, during which period expenditure on education has doubled, in real terms.

§ Mr. Willey

I made it clear that I was not charging the Government with any desire to cut back educational expenditure, but the whole drift of what the hon. Member is now saying is to that end. Will he declare where he stands? Is he in favour of expanding education?

§ Mr. Chataway

The Conservative Party's record gives the hon. Member the answer to that question. We should not 1169 have gone for an expansion of this kind were we not convinced that education should be given a high priority. If the hon. Member really believes that there is a serious possibility of a Labour Government, the best service he can do for education is to persuade his right hon. arid hon. Friends that it is right to make sacrifices and show restraint in other fields in order to devote a rising proportion of the nation's resources to education.

Alongside the hon. Member's criticisms one would expect him to show an awareness of the vastly increased share of the national wealth which has been devoted by this Government to education, and an awareness that it is showing a good return. One would think, from listening to him, that there was nothing to show for an extra 2 per cent. of the gross national product for education, and nothing to show from a doubling in real terms of education expenditure over a decade. What a basis, if ever he were Minister of Education, from which to start arguing with all the other claimants upon the Exchequer that his party encourages so freely! The Government believe that education should be, as it is, the fastest growing item of expenditure in the national budget, not only because we know that there is still much to do but because we recognise that a greatly increased expenditure has brought a greatly increased return, both in skills that are of economic importance to the nation and in expanding individual opportunity.

§ Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

If the hon. Member believes that, will he explain why, in the borough which he has the honour to represent, one of the few Catholic grammar schools—St. Joseph's Academy—has been denied the opportunity even of having a science laboratory? How does he explain that, in terms of what he has said?

§ Mr. Chataway

If the hon. Member suggests that the figures concerning the increase in national expenditure on education that I have given him are fraudulent, I hope that he will frame his charge a little more directly. I have never said that we do not have to make hard choices between different areas. I have never implied for a moment that there is not a great deal left to do. I hope that I made that absolutely clear at 1170 several points in my speech. Naturally, as the Member for Lewisham, North, I wish that that project could have been included in the building programme, but I am satisfied that we are taking the right decision, and that there were other projects of higher priority.

§ Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

The County Borough of Derby has already figured in the debate, and it may now be appropriate for me to make the brief intervention for which you have been good enough to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise at the express request of the Council of the County Borough of Derby, conveyed to me in an official letter from the Town Clerk. The decision that the Town Clerk should write to me and send me a copy of a letter which the Council addressed to the Ministry on the subject of school building was agreed to unanimously, the Conservative members of the Council giving their support to the proposal of the Labour majority. The proposal was made by a Labour member and seconded by a Conservative member, with not a voice being raised in opposition.

The opening paragraph of the Council's letter to the Minister is in forthright terms. It says: Your letter dated 14th February notifying my Authority of the decision of the Minister not to include any of our proposals in the Major Building Programme for 1964–65, has been received with great dissatisfaction by the Council. I am instructed to write to you expressing their very strong protest at your decision. What moved the Council—including the Conservative members—to write to the Ministry in that way?

I will read the Ministry's letter to the Council. It said: Sir, With reference to Mr. Middleton's letter of 29th June, 1962, I am directed by the Minister of Education to state that he regrets that it has not been found possible to include any of the Authority's projects in the Major Building Programme for 1964–65. I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant, (Signed) S. M. Smith pp. (A. S. Gann) That is a scandalously casual way to notify Derby Council of a major policy decision, which was of immense importance to the borough. It was very damaging to the education policy and programme of the Education Committee, 1171 and to the interests of the people of Derby. I should have thought that in a matter of this importance the Minister would have thought it right to sign the letter himself, rather than leave it to his regional officer, Mr. Gann. Indeed, the House will note than not even Mr. Gann troubled to sign the letter himself. He left it to a clerical assistant to sign on his behalf.

But much more serious than the casual and discourteous form of the letter is the substance of the decision which it conveys: no school building at all for Derby in 1964–65; everything cut off; their urgent needs wholly disregarded; their forward plans in chaos; the work of their architect and his staff disrupted at a moment's notice, by an arbitrary Ministerial decision which I confess I find it impossible to understand. I keep in close touch with the educational work of the Council, and I believe that there was nothing in the building programme for 1964–65 which was not genuinely—and I would say urgently—required.

The schools of Derby are a source of pride to all the people—especially the modern schools, which are admirably designed and splendidly equipped. But this has not been done by extravagant or crash programmes. It has been done by very careful planning over the years. All the new building for which the Council asked, and which was part of this planning, is thrown into total confusion by this retrograde and reactionary decision which the Minister has made. No wonder the Council says that Mr. Smith's letter was received with "great dissatisfaction" and that it told the Town Clerk to write expressing its "very strong protest" at the decision.

There was one project to which the Education Committee and the Council attached particular importance—the project to replace St. Mary's Secondary School. That is a Roman Catholic school. I know it and I have greatly admired the work done by the headmaster and staff. It has been agreed for years that the building was no longer adequate for a secondary school and that it must be urgently replaced. The Council put this at the top of its programme for 1964–65. This is what it said in its letter: The highest priority in this Council's submission was for a replacement of St. Mary's 1172 Secondary School. This has appeared in our major building programme proposals for a number of years, and is now very much overdue. This particular proposal is strongly supported by the Nottingham Roman Catholic Diocesan Commission for Schools, and the new building would replace premises which are quite inadequate for a secondary school. It would also release the existing premises for use as two primary schools, so relieving considerably growing pressure in the existing Roman Catholic schools. Moreover, as an aided school, the full cost of the proposals would not fall upon public funds. We all admire the devotion and generosity of the Roman Catholic community in raising money for building and maintaining schools. If the project for St. Mary's Secondary School were carried through, the Roman Catholics would have carried a quarter or a half of the financial burden, according to a formula which the Ministry has devised and applies in such cases.

I cannot conceive how the Minister came to this extraordinary decision about St. Mary's. Probably the reason was that he had never heard of St. Mary's and did not make any inquiry into Derby's problems, but gave his regional officer orders in general terms to make economies, and endorsed without question what that officer said. I am now challenging that decision with all my power. I am calling on the Minister to tell us tonight that he will reverse it, and reverse it without delay.

In asking that I am transmitting the wishes of Derby Council and of the Conservative members on it. This is what they say in the Town Clerk's letter: My council feel the urgent need for going ahead with this particular project very strongly indeed, and I am instructed to ask the Minister for reconsideration of his decision and the inclusion of this project at least in the 1964–65 major building programme. I hope the Minister will tell us that he has agreed to do what my Derby friends desire. In urging the case for Derby, I am also voicing the wishes of all the boroughs, county boroughs and counties which have been given nothing for school building and of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) spoke this afternoon. In a telegram the Yorkshire Association of Education Committees said to the Minister on 19th March: This Yorkshire Association of Education Committees, meeting today in Ilkley expresses its deep concern that, after the reductions 1173 already made in the 1963–64 building programme of authorities in membership and the greatly increased costs of building, there should he severe reductions in their 1964–65 building programmes; and asks the Minister to make urgent representations to Her Majesty's Treasury for additional funds to be placed at the disposal of the education service in respect of both school and further education building". I have been in close touch with teachers in Derby in recent weeks. In nearly thirty years I have never known them so united and so indignant as they are today. The Burnham machinery was created in 1922—before either of the Ministers on the Government Front Bench was born. It has worked admirably for forty years. The Committee is very widely representative of the teachers and local education authorities who employ them and who, let it be remembered, pay 40 per cent. of their salaries. The Minister came to his present office in the great purge of last July. After nine months he has done something which none of his predecessors has ever done. He has not only rejected the Committee's last proposal about salaries, but he has done so without taking into consideration, so far as I can see see, any of the proposals about differentials which had been agreed to and adopted over the years since 1945. Let him be very certain that the teachers bitterly resent what he has done. They regard it as a grave discouragement to the younger teachers who bear such a heavy burden of the out-of-school activities which are of such importance to our educational system. Several people who are well informed have said to me last weekend that they believe what the Minister has done will accentuate the tendency for young teachers to augment their incomes by taking outside employment in their spare time instead of taking out-of-school activities to which they have given themselves in the past. By recent decisions the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have struck a grave blow at their own future political careers. They have done much worse than that—they have struck a grave blow at British education. In the Treasury view they may have made economies, but the Treasury's economies often mean a grievous national loss.

§ Mr. Chataway

I think the right hon. Member must be under a basic misconception about the whole Burnham Com- 1174 mittee question. There is absolutely no question of my right hon. Friend asking for a rise for teachers less than that recommended by the Burnham Committee.

§ Mr. Noel-Baker

Of course, I understand that the Minister, against the wishes of the Burnham Committee, has redistributed the sum which has been agreed, but it is on the building programme that the Treasury believes it has made economies and the Treasury's economies often mean a grievous national loss.

§ Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge)

Will the right hon. Member give way?

§ Mr. Noel-Baker

I cannot give way now. Our education is Britain's future. The Ministers have done a bad day's work for Britain by the short-sighted and lamentable proposals which we are debating today.

§ Mr. Gilbert Longden (Hertfordshire, South-West)

The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker), in his praise of the Burnham Committee, seems to be more diehard than the deepest Tory I have ever known. Because something is old it must therefore be good and incapable of improvement—that would seem to be his argument. I am afraid that I cannot follow him in it, although I shall have something to say about teachers.

The Opposition Motion regrets the further cuts in the school building programmes and the failure to … recruit sufficient teachers". It is true that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose, but one is somewhat amazed at the effrontery of this particular attack. It is not as if there were any cause whatever for the Opposition to do its job by keeping the Government on their toes, because the Government have been on their toes for a very long time in this matter. I have been refreshing my memory about some things which used to happen during the six post-war years in reference to education; I have looked at various Ministry circulars which were published from 1947 to 1951. I read: the shortage of certain principal building materials … will inevitably entail drastic curtailment of new works programmes generally. … Even in 1949 it will be essential to avoid new building wherever possible.

§ Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central)

Four years after the war.

§ Mr. Longden

I also read: There will be some slowing down of our advance in educational building. That was said by Mr. Attlee in 1949. Then I read: For the 1951 programme a reduction of 12½ per cent. …will not be sufficient. The maintenance of… Government policy —" depends, however, on the strictest economy being exercised … Authorities are asked to submit to the Ministry as soon as possible … a statement showing the amount of the savings which they will effect … The value of improvements to old schools started during the financial year, 1951–52, must still be restricted to about three-fifths of the figure for … 1949. Lastly, in 1951: The Minister regrets"— the late Miss Otis had nothing on him— that the resources available are not sufficient to permit any significant increase in expenditure on educational works.

§ Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

Would the hon. Gentleman say from which document he is quoting?

§ Mr. Longden

These are extracts from Ministry circulars, published in the "Conservative Party Campaign Guide". The source of my information does not make the quotations any less authoritative. We must remember, too, that in those days there were no nursery schools. There was a ban on them, and on major improvements to old schools. There were no new buildings for the school meals service. There were reduced transport facilities, and increased charges for school meals. No doubt they were all necessary at the time, but they were certainly more "cutting" than anything we are doing now.

By contrast, what are we doing now? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he first took office gave education first priority of the social services, and this afternoon we have heard that the total cost of offering equal opportunities to all our children has nearly trebled since 1951, and that it is now 4.7 per cent. of the gross national product. Not enough yet, it will be said, and truth- 1176 fully said, but it is increasing annually far more rapidly, I am sorry to say, than the gross national product, and if the Opposition would lend their influence to increasing that rather than increasing the expenditure on education, which we do not have to be asked to do, it would be more beneficial to the country.

As for school buildings, we have built four times as many schools each year as the Opposition did when they were in office. The average number is 480 against 110. I know that these are unpalatable facts to the party opposite, but it is time that they were disclosed. Every day during our period of office one school and one-third of another school has been completed, and they are much better schools and they cost far less per place than those built by the Opposition.

As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, between 1951 and 1962 the number of school children in England and Wales increased by 1¼ million. What he did not say was that the number of school places increased by 2½ million, and that 380,000 places are now under construction. Nor did he tell us that during the same period the all-age, or the black list, schools fell from 5,636 to 775. The £300 million programme for England and Wales announced in the 1958 White Paper for the five-year period 1960 to 1965 will have been achieved when the amount recently announced for 1964–65 has been spent. There has been no cut, and the fact of the matter is that any figure which is less than the Opposition would have liked represents a "cut" to them.

The making of new places in teacher training colleges forms a bridge from the Opposition's first criticism to their second. Since 1958–59 these colleges, as we have heard from the Parliamentary Secretary, have expanded their intake from 28,000 to 48,000, and plans have now been made to enable them to take 80,000 by 1970, which is the number recommended by the National Advisory Council.

What, then, of the alleged failure to take adequate steps to recruit sufficient teachers"? The supply of teachers depends upon adequate facilities for training and upon enough applicants to be trained. The facilities are not yet enough but they are being increased as rapidly as it is practically possible to increase them. As to 1177 applicants, in spite of the pay and conditions, there are more would-be teachers of good calibre than can at present be trained.

That brings me to this perennial discontent about salaries. I made it the subject of my maiden speech in this House and said: … I have chosen this occasion not only because of the paramount national importance of the subject … but also because it is or should be non-contentious. I went on to say: I pass now to the second method whereby we seek to give a sound education to our children, and that method is by paying their teachers properly … we who control the public purse … should not sit idly by and allow the builders of future generations to be paid scarcely more than a jobbing gardener."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, cc. 2013 and 2016–17.] I am amused to see that the then Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who had the customary task of offering congratulations, said: I am quite certain that he will get the teachers' vote. He has indeed been most outspoken in support of their claims."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1950; Vol. 474, c. 2018.] Today I fear that I shall not get the bulk of the teachers' vote because I have had to tell them quite plainly that I wholly support my right hon. Friend in what he is trying to do for the profession.

After all, my right hon. Friend has nothing whatsoever to gain by alienating the whole of the teaching profession. If it be true, which I doubt, that he has done—

§ Mr. G. Thomas

Does the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend knows better than the profession what is good for the profession?

§ Mr. Longden

We are not always the best judges of what is good for us. By Statute my right hon. Friend is responsible for the conduct of the educational system in this country. He has nothing to gain by alienating the teachers. His reason can only be that he genuinely believes it to be in the best interests of the profession as a whole. Of course, he must, as the largest paymaster, be a party to the negotiations, and of course he must have a say in the salary structure of the profession.

I have had to tell my teachers, too, that I do not think that the proposed 1178 starting salaries compare unfavourably with the first earnings, generally after six years' training, in other professions. Nor can the other professions look for such early increments. Between 1955 and 1961 the average salary of men teachers rose by nearly 50 per cent., and of women teachers by over 50 per cent. In both cases that was more than the average earnings in this country, and very considerably more than the rise in the retail price index.

But the intermediate and ultimate rewards of the teaching profession compare very unfavourably with those of other professions, and I agree with the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester who wrote to The Times the other day and said that where scholars do leave the country, in my experience, it is far more often the prospect of future advancement and opportunity than salary which is the operating cause. My right hon. Friend believes that it is that prospect which will encourage the best people to come into teaching, far more than the prospect of an additional £50 at the start, and I agree with him.

Let us look at the solutions the Opposition have to offer. At a time when too many classes are already over-sized, when the number of pupils is increasing, when more are staying on after 15—one-third of the 15-year-olds now stay on as against only one-fifth in 1951—and at a time when six times as many pupils at our secondary modern schools are taking O-level examinations than was the case in 1954, the Labour Party announces that the reduction of all classes to 30 and the increase of the school-leaving age to 16 are decisions which can no longer be postponed". That is to say, they must immediately be introduced. This is to be found in Signposts for the Sixties.

§ Mrs. White

That does not necessarily mean that it must be immediately implemented. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read the Crowther Report. This made it clear, after a careful study of population trends, that one ought urgently to take a decision on the timetable by which one would then raise the school-leaving age. The C