asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities in England and Wales failed to commence projects for which allocations were made in the 1961–62 building programme; and what was the total amount involved.

At 31st March, 1962, 97 authorities had not started projects in their 1961–62 major school building and further education programmes, valued at £39·5 million.

Will the right hon. Gentleman warn those local authorities that unless they carry out their building programmes their allocations will be reassessed and given to local authorities which are willing and able to do the work?

There is always some time lag between the end of the programme year and the actual starts on the projects in that programme. It would not be fair to assume that all authorities that fail to begin their projects in the programme year are to be criticised because, in many cases, it is impracticable to start owing to site acquisition problems or planning difficulties. However, I agree that if it is clear that a project is not going to start within a foreseeable time and there is a need for another one which can be fitted in, whether in the major programme or that for minor works, we should bear that possibility in mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any of these local authorities are affected by the shortage of, for in-stance, architects? Because of that shortage and acquisition of land problems, have they found it difficult to make a start in the programme year?

The hon. Lady knows that site acquisition problems can be very difficult. I think that it is usually because of either site acquisition problems or planning difficulties that projects get delayed.

asked the Minister of Education what changes in the cost of building have occurred since the original £300 million school building programme was announced in 1958; by how much would the £300 million have to be increased to produce the amount of building which it would have produced if prices had remained steady; and what adjustments have been made to annual programmes during the five years to allow for the increase in costs.

The official index of cost of new construction has risen by 8 per cent., and my cost limits, which were unchanged between 1955 and 1960, have risen by an average of 15 per cent. To allow fully for these changes, the £300 million school building programme would have to be increased to £316 million or to £344 million respectively. The answer to the last part of the Question is, "None, Sir".

The amounts have not been increased. Does not this confirm that not only was the programme inadequate when it was conceived in 1958 but that the targets then set have been eroded by the rising cost of living? Does not this clearly show the need for expanded capital investment in school building?

Of course, this is a point I shall bear in mind when settling with my colleagues the size of the programme, but I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to confuse starts with work done. Although we are now considering the last year, 1964–65, in terms of starts, we are barely half-way through the programme in terms of work done. While we try to keep within our authorisations, as one must, it is too early to forecast precisely the final value of the projects authorised during the five years 1960–61 to 1964–65.

But will not the Minister agree that, if we are considering the next two years, we can consider only starts, and it is not likely that over the next two years he will complete more than he starts? In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a serious shortfall on the programme envisaged in 1958, and will he bring the utmost pressure to bear on his colleagues to see that the programmes for these two years are considerably increased?

It is too late now to reconsider the 1963–64 programme, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have not stated to the House a final figure for the 1964–65 programme. I made the announcement when I did because it is very important for local authorities to be able to get on with some planning ahead with projects for the following year.

asked the Minister of Education if he will state the school building programme agreed for the county borough of Tynemouth, and for the Northumberland County Council as it affects Whitley Bay.

The major building programmes for 1964–65 recently announced include the extension of the Tynemouth High School for Girls and the completion of the Briardene County Primary School at Whitley Bay.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether this includes anything in addition under the money which is supposed to be allocated to the North-East Coast in support of the noble Lord who is looking after our interests?

We are talking about the 1964–65 major building programme. With regard to the North-East, what I have done is to allow more for minor works which can be started during the current financial year. That is a rather different matter. I am glad that I seem to have given my hon. Friend more satisfaction than I have given her for what seems like some years.

asked the Minister of Education if he will now increase the allocation for school building in those areas where unemployment is over 5 per cent.

As part of the Government's measures to relieve unemployment, I removed last December the limit on the amount of minor works costing up to £20,000 which certain authorities in the North-East and Merseyside might start by 31st March next, provided the period of construction would not exceed six months. As a result extra building valued at £2 million is likely to he undertaken.

Would not the Minister agree that in areas of high unemployment, one often finds out-of-date school buildings? Is it not a question of killing two birds with one stone?

It is exactly because the Government fully realise the point that we made the relaxation concerning minor works, which could be undertaken fairly quickly. As my Answer shows, that will result in quite a lot of extra work being done over and above the programme originally announced.

Is the Minister saying that it is not possible to look forward even one year on the load that will be placed upon the building industry in areas of high unemployment? Is he saying that there will be no unemployment in the North-East and on Merseyside in a year's time when this school building programme starts to take effect?

No. What I am saying is that when one considers the major building programme for 1964–65, for example, it will affect mainly the load on the building industry for 1965 and 1966. I assure the hon. Member that the picture then of the construction industries must be considered carefully and might be very different from what it is today.

asked the Minister of Education the value of the projects started or to be started in each of the years of the building programme for primary and secondary schools during the five years from 1960–61 to 1964–65.

Actual starts were £57·2 million in 1960–61 and £66·4 million in 1961–62. Authorised starts for 1962–63 and 1963–64 are £64 million and £55 million, respectively. The programme for 1964–65 has not been finally settled, but as I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) on 12th February the value of school projects to be started in that year will be at least £55 million.

Does the Minister appreciate that this is a serious cut in school building over the next two years and that we simply cannot justify it by an economic crisis twelve months ago? Will he see that this decision is reversed and the figure at least brought up to that decided in 1958?

I have already said in answer to an earlier Question that it is too early to forecast precisely the final value of the projects authorised during the five years 1960–61 to 1964–65. No doubt it has not escaped the hon. Member's attention that last year work done on school building reached the figure of £66 million, which was £17 million higher than in the year before?

Does not the Minister appreciate that it is precisely because local education authorities were able to do more than he estimated they could do that we ought to be more ambitious about the programme for the next two years?

The hon. Member must look at the position in the context of educational building as a whole. As he knows, next year there will be a 50 per cent. rise in starts for teacher training, university building is also increasing and we have today a considerably higher level of further education building generally than when the 1958 White Paper was prepared.

asked the Minister of Education whether he will consider taking steps to encourage the provision of facilities for nursery education on such a basis as would both relieve the pressure on the primary schools and recruit competent supervisory staff which would not otherwise be available for teaching purposes.

asked the Minister of Education if arrangements are in hand to increase the number of nursery schools.

So long as the primary schools remain seriously short of teachers, I cannot allow any general expansion of nursery education. However, where suitable accommodation is already available, I am ready exceptionally to consider proposals for the extension of nursery class provision, where the local education authority can satisfy me that this will release qualified married women with young children to teach in maintained primary and secondary schools.

While appreciating the difficulty of the Minister because of the failure of the Government to train an adequate number of teachers for the immediate needs of the country, would he not agree that in the long run it is desirable that as much provision as possible is made available for children under the age of 5? Would he not agree that the latter part of his Answer represents an advance on Circular 8/60 of May, 1960, which indicated that the Ministry was very unwilling to see an advance in this field?

I would like to study that circular. It was a very limited administrative concession that I was thinking about. I think that it was first made in the case of Huddersfield in 1961. As to the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, as he knows, we are now in the process of expanding the training colleges at an unprecedented speed.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we should have more nursery schools and that they should be integrated into our education system? Since the Government have so far lacked initiative in this connection, will the right hon. Gentleman please get on with this job because nursery schools are needed not only by society in general but particularly by the parents of many youngsters?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to look at my original Answer in which I regretted that so long as the primary schools remain seriously short of teachers we cannot allow any general expansion of nursery education.

asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the success of play-groups for under-fives established under the auspices of the Save the Children Fund; and if he will take steps to establish such play-groups as an educational experiment.

asked the Minister of Education what arrangements he is making for the inspection of private nursery schools and nursery groups.

My powers do not extend to private nursery establishments, which are not schools as defined in the Education Acts.

I understand that, but will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the admirable initiative taken by the Save the Children Fund is something to be encouraged? Is it not within his power to draw the attention of local authorities to the success of play groups established by the Fund, bearing in mind his answers to the previous Question and the fact that progress with nursery education in the formal sense appears to be unlikely within the next few years?

I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. Proprietors of private nursery schools can apply for recognition by my Department, and if they do I arrange for them to be inspected.

Is the Minister aware that the number of private schools and play groups is growing considerably to meet the increased need and the lamentable lack of provision by his Department? Is it not essential that the right hon. Gentleman should institute a proper system of inspection of the schools so that they can reach and maintain high standards, in addition to the need for them to satisfy medical officers of health that they are in suitable premises?

I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that the responsibility of dealing with the registration of these establishments under the Nurseries and Child Minders' Regulation Act, 1948, rests with local authorities.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider what encouragement he can give to such bodies as the Save the Children Fund and the Free School Play-Grounds Association, and will he also consider withdrawing Circular 8/60 to see whether he can allow building in exceptional cases? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the conditions of children under 5 in heavily populated urban areas as there is possibly a major social scandal here that has not been revealed?

I will bear in mind all the points raised this afternoon, and particularly the first point which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) raised in his supplementary question. As to the general question of nursery education. I do not think that the time has come for me to withdraw that circular, although I am sure that the authorities will notice the very limited concession I have announced this afternoon in connection with the all-important problem of teacher supply.

asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the future of the Benton Road, School, Ilford.

This is at present a school for handicapped pupils. Those pupils will move to a new school later in the year and I understand that the Roman Catholic authorities hope to buy the Benton Road site from the local education authority and establish a primary school there. No formal proposal for the establishment of the primary school has yet been put to me.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Essex County Council is asking the Roman Catholic community to pay a price for this school at residential use price instead of at educational price and that this will cost the community an extra £18,000? As the Essex County Council can ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government for consent to sell at a lower price, is not this a monstrous imposition on a community which already has to pay for services which the rest of the community receives free? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

The local education authority is fully within its rights in asking for residential use value as the price of the property, acting in accordance with Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1959. It is open to the local education authority to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government for his consent to sell at less than the best price, but I have no power to require it, nor would it be right for me to require it to do that, and it would be wholly non-consonant with the spirit of the 1959 Act, debates on which in the House I remember very well.

On a point of order. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Education what administrative machinery he has established to effect liaison with the Ministry of Labour in connection with the problems associated with technical education.

There is regular and frequent consultation between officers of the two Departments.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has recently propounded a series of proposals which will materially affect the whole concept of industrial and technical training and education in this country, especially for young people? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that if these proposals are to be fully effective it is essential that the links between the two Ministries should be close, strong and capable of quick, efficient and supple action?

I quite agree. There is no hard and fast line between technical education and industrial training, and both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I recognise that there are many problems which must be looked at by both Departments. The recent White Paper was based on the whole concept of a partnership between Government, industry and the education services. I hope that there will be no misunderstanding about this in this House or in another place.

asked the Minister of Education which proposals he has accepted of those on staffing and accommodation in adult education recently made to him by the National Institute of Adult Education.

The main proposals about accommodation are being considered in the light of capital investment policy, and I have no statement to make about them at present. As regards the staffing proposals, I intend to provide for the 1963–64 session some additional grants which will enable the universities extra-mural departments, the Workers Education Association districts and other responsible bodies to increase the total number of their part-time tutors. I hope that local education authorities, to which I have sent copies of the report, will study those recommendations in it which affect their own staffing arrangements.^*

This is a disappointing reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman going on with the same line of policy as that pursued by his predecessor, namely, to make vague innuendos about adult education being a good thing and do little about it?

I ask the hon. Member to await the publication of next year's Estimates. I should have thought that providing the additional grants which I have mentioned could hardly be regarded as a vague innuendo.

Will the right hon. Gentleman anticipate those Estimates by saying how much these are worth?

No, Sir. I would ask the hon. Member to await publication of the Estimates.

asked the Minister of Education which local education authorities are unable to provide suitable day release classes for Admiralty juveniles aged 15 to 18 years; and what are their reasons.

I am not aware of any.

^*[See Official Report, 15th March, 1963, Vol. 673 c. 207.]

In view of that, could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if the Admiralty should bring its number of day release students up to the Civil Service average of about 80 per cent., local authorities will be able to cope? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the view of the Civil Lord that further education for 16 to 18-year-old non-industrials is hardly worth pursuing?

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I have made inquiries of local education authorities which are at present providing day release courses attended by students from some of the larger Admiralty depots and I understand that they have not found difficulty in providing suitable courses. If the hon. Member has any case to which he wants to refer, I will look at it.

I was referring to what the Civil Lord said in the House.

I will look at that.

asked the Minister of Education if he will take steps to increase the minor improvements grants given to county councils.

The level of educational minor works for 1963–64 has already been settled at £16 million. A decision on the allocations for 1964–65 will be made in the context of the general review of public investment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases at least these grants seem to have been whittled down in recent years? Is he aware that because of lack of work done under this category some schools were late opening this year and some were opened at great discomfort to pupils and teachers? Will my right hon. Friend bear this in mind in future negotiations?

I will fully bear in mind the strong feelings which are constantly expressed in all parts about minor improvements. Somerset, I think, had an allocation of £100,000 for 1963–64, which was fully in line with its total school population. The level of minor works starts for 1962–63 has been increased by special concessions to authorities in the North-East and Merseyside. These are likely to produce additional minor works costing about £2 million.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us consider that he is grossly neglecting local education in rural areas? Would he not agree that to make more of the minor works grants available would be the best way of improving the standard of many primary schools in rural villages, many of which are in slum categories? Could the right hon. Gentleman not have another look at the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster)? Is he aware that we believe that steps should be taken now to bring these primary schools up to decent standards and that it could be done with the help of these grants?

I agree that the minor works programme is very important from the point of view of the primary schools. After the five-year programme announced in the 1958 White Paper, we must have a special look at the needs of primary schools, especially in the light of the survey which we have undertaken. I am sure that the hon. Member, on his part, would agree that completion of the reorganisation of village schools has also made a considerable difference in rural areas.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that the Fair-cross Special School, Barking, built in 1921, is in need of modernisation, and that a satisfactory plan exists for its development to provide for the accommodation of 180 physically handicapped children; and if he will approve this project so that work may begin on it as soon as possible.

The Essex local education authority put forward this project for the 1964–65 building programme, but it was not satisfactory in its original form. My Department has recently received modified proposals which are still under discussion with the authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this school was originally designed as an open-air school, that its central heating is quite inadequate and that it recently had to close for a number of days during the bad weather? While many other schools had a similar experience, is not this particularly unfortunate in the case of a special school for educationally subnormal children? As soon as the plans are satisfactory, will the right hon. Gentleman expedite things a bit? Also, will he say whether he approves of the general idea that it should be transformed into a school for physically handicapped children?

This is a difficult problem. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am giving the case my special attention. This school is certainly in need of improvement. There are two difficulties. The original scheme was estimated to cost about £30,000, but it now appears that it will be necessary to spend more than twice as much, nearly as much as a new school would cost. The Essex authority has placed this project only third in priority in a list of four special school projects in their area. As the hon. Gentleman says, the plan is rather changing. The authority's plan involves reorganising this school and also a school at Dagenham. One has to consider whether, looking to the future, this is the best solution, bearing in mind other provision in the area. But I shall certainly pay careful attention to the question of this school.

asked the Minister of Education when he proposes to publish the building survey of the 30,000 maintained schools in England and Wales recently completed by his Department.

Work on the assembly and analysis of the survey material is progressing. I hope to publish a summary of the results within a few months from now.

As the report is likely to follow the lines of the survey conducted by the National Union of Teachers which disclosed a shocking state of affairs in many of our schools, will the Minister press his colleagues in the Government now to permit an enlarged school building programme so that we may get rid of some of the bad schools in the shortest possible time?

As I said last week, we must reach a final conclusion, in the light of available resources, on the school building programme for 1964–65 before I can say anything about the programme for subsequent years. In answer to the first point which the hon. Gentleman makes, the material published by the N.U.T. covered only a sample of schools. My Department's survey embraces every maintained primary and secondary school in England and Wales. As the House knows, I am keen that, when the time comes, it shall have the results as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Education if owing to the heavy cost of education that is being borne by local authorities, he will take immediate steps to ensure that the cost of teachers' salaries shall now become the responsibility of the central Government.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister realise that the cost of teachers' salaries is imposing a very heavy burden on education throughout the country? In so far as he himself thinks that he is justified in interfering with the conditions attached to the Burnham Committee's award and his predecessor thought himself justified in intervening over the total amount which was granted, ought not the Government now to take over the responsibility of teachers' salaries throughout the country?

This would be a very serious decision from the point of view of education as a local government service. While I felt it necessary to intervene on this occasion, nothing I have done, in my view, makes it any the less important that education should be for the future also a national service administered locally.

asked the Minister of Education if he is aware that the cost of education is becoming a financial burden on local rates; and if he will now take steps to ensure that the Government's financial contribution of 50 per cent. of the cost of education shall be substantially increased.

asked the Minister of Education what proposals he has for transferring a further part of the cost of education to the national Exchequer, thus relieving the burden on ratepayers.

Education is one of the local government services covered by the general grant, and about 60 per cent. of total relevant expenditure on these services is borne by the Exchequer. I see no justification for changing this arrangement.

Does not the Minister realise that even the West Riding County Council is being continualy embarrassed by the cost of education? This year, even after pruning, its expenditure will be £35¼ million, a reduction of £2,850,000 from the previous figure. Does not the Minister consider, therefore, that inasmuch as we want more education for our children, the Government ought to stand a greater portion of the cost than they do now?

I understand the financial problems of local authorities caused by the very rapid expansion of the education services at the present time. One cannot advance the share of the national product from 4·1 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. over three years, which is what we shall be doing and what the country wants, without creating problems. I must say, however, that this is a problem for central Government finance as well as for local government finance. In 1962–63, the current financial year, total expenditure for education relevant to the general grant was £785 million. The general grant represents about 55 per cent. of the estimated expenditure on all the relevant services, and rate deficiency grant covers a further 5½ per cent. In addition, my own Ministry's direct expenditure in the current financial year is about £60 million, and school milk and meals account for about £66 million in addition. I should not like the House or the country to think that the central Government were not themselves paying very large amounts of money for the education service.

Although the difficulties of expansion are appreciated, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the colossal imbalance in local authority spending today through education swallowing up something like two-thirds of the rate product? In view of this, will he look at the matter again? Before very long, many people living on restricted incomes will be extremely severely hit by rate rises.

I appreciate the difficulties caused to ratepayers by the rapid expansion of the service. I was concerned only to point out that central Government expenditure itself is going up very rapidly. Of course, education expenditure as a whole has risen as a demand on our resources more rapidly than any other main block of demand in recent years. I myself do not believe that it would be right to make a drastic change here if we believe that education should continue as a national service, and as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) on 12th December, local rates are less of a burden now in real terms than they were before the war.

I ask my right hon. Friend not to underestimate the very strong feeling on this matter. Does he realise that, if the whole question is not completely reconsidered and the burden reallocated, rates will go up and up?

I assure my hon. Friend that I do read the newspapers. I think that that, perhaps, is in itself an answer to his question.

asked the Minister of Education to what extent he advises junior mixed schools in rural areas regarding uniform clothing for the pupils.

I do not issue any advice. This is a matter which is best left to the discretion of individual local education authorities.

Is not the Minister aware of the discrepancies and differences which occur throughout the country in regard to the clothing allowed for children going to school? Is he aware that in the village of Womersley in my constituency the local headmistress has been sending home, even during the recent weather, two children who were going to school in jeans and wellingtons? These children have to walk a mile and a half from the farm where they live to the school. Will he issue some sort of advice to village schoolmistresses that they should temper their authority with a certain amount of common sense?

If one is to have a system of national education administered locally, circulars must not be multiplied overmuch. I should hesitate before sending out a circular to village schoolmistresses telling them what children should wear.

asked the Minister of Education how many young teachers will be affected by his decision to reject the Burnham Committee's recent award; and what representations he has received about it.

The number of teachers, both young and old, who would be immediately affected would depend on how the Burnham Committee decided to modify its proposals in the light of the general principles which I outlined in my letter to the Chairman. Some younger teachers would receive smaller increases on the basic scale, but some of them could benefit from improvements in above-scale payments. Future prospects for all teachers who stayed in teaching would be improved.

Is the Minister aware that his action has been very detrimental to the matter of teacher supply and our efforts to overcome oversized classes and that his interference with the machinery of negotiation is yet another example of Government interference with machinery which they themselves are responsible for setting up? Their action will destroy all confidence in this machinery and will affect any hope of unity in the teaching profession.

I dealt fully with this matter last Thursday. I do not want to say very much more this afternoon, only the day before the Burnham Committee is due to meet tomorrow to consider my letter to the Chairman. I would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman of one sentence of my letter to the Chairman, which said:

"I believe that the expansion of the profession, as well as the esteem in which it is held and thus its attraction for potential recruits of high quality, depends quite as much on the opportunities it offers of advancement for the most able, best qualified and most ambitious of its members as on the level at which the more junior are paid."

As the Minister has had time to reflect, will he consider, since this matter will be considered tomorrow, withdrawing his intervention? Does he realise that this very ill-timed intervention has created the impression that it is his purpose to humiliate and divide this profession?

Certainly not. I am glad to think that the hon. Gentleman's views are not shared by a very large section of informed public opinion in Britain, including some very sensible leading articles in all sections of the daily Press. I did not prescribe in detail what the revised proposals should be. I only indicated in general terms, after having given the matter considerable thought, the kind of modified pattern which I thought able to approve. I have written my letter and I must take my stand on it.

asked the Minister of Education what reply he has received from the Chairman of the Burnham Committee to his letter of 20th February.

None, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has put the Chairman of the Burnham Committee in a quite impossible position? What is the use of having the Burnham Committee if the Minister is going to step in and interfere with its conclusions as to the best way to distribute salary increases? What does he intend to do if tomorrow the Burnham Committee decides to stand by its proposals, as it is perfectly entitled to do as the accredited and recognised negotiating machinery for the profession?

I am not going to answer the hypothetical question which the hon. Lady asked. I answered the first part of her supplementary question fully last Thursday. Section 89 of the Act leaves it open to me to reject proposals if I so wish on whatever grounds seem to me to be reasonable. It seemed to me that, once it became clear that this provisional agreement would be ratified, it would have been wrong for me to delay intervening; I wanted teachers to have their pay increase, on lines which I could approve, on 1st April. With regard to the Chairman of the Burnham Committee, I think it is a funny state of affairs if one is told that one has put a chairman in an impossible position by communicating with him as chairman. It seemed to me the obvious thing to do. I have told the Chairman in my letter that I shall most certainly meet the whole Burnham Committee if it thinks that this will help.

With regard to so-called interference with the Burnham Committee, has not the person who pays 55 per cent. of the bill some right to express his views?

I said last week to the House that I do not believe that any Minister of Education can disengage from consideration of the structure of teachers' salaries, which may affect teacher supply and the staffing of the schools for which I am charged with a public responsibility.

Many hon. Members would not disagree with the last sentence expressed by the Minister. Can he make one thing absolutely plain? Prior to 20th February, was the Burnham Committee aware in any detail of his views on the salary structure?

No, Sir. There was no constitutional machinery whereby I could make it aware of my views before that date. At the moment, there is no constitutional provision whereby I can officially communicate my views to the Burnham Committee before an agreement is reached.

Why does the Minister continue to argue as though he wishes to give the impression that he is the only one interested in giving proper awards to the more mature members of the teaching profession? Is not the real issue that most teachers feel with regard to this award that it would be advantageous and fair to give the greatest encouragement to the new entrants to the profession? Is not the way out to increase the sum of money available to a figure between the two figures which have been argued about so that the policy which he desires and the policy which the profession desires can be implemented?

I made my views on the amount of money clear in my letter to the Chairman. I hope that I have never suggested that I was the only person who felt concern in this matter. I pointed out to the House that I had a special responsibility here.

asked the Minister of Education by what amount the Essex County Council and the borough of Leyton would benefit if 5 per cent. of educational expenditure now borne by local authorities became a further national charge.

Five per cent. of estimated expenditure by local authorities on education in 1963–64 is £42·63 million. If this amount were added to the general grant and distributed in proportion to the present distribution Essex would receive an additional £1·8 million. The Borough of Leyton does not receive general grant and would, therefore, benefit only through a reduction in the county precept.

In view of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and in view of the fact that rates are rising in Essex and, incidentally, in my own borough, partly due at least to Government policy, would it not be prudent, beneficial and appropriate if to ease the burden he recommended to the Treasury that this 5 per cent. should be transferred to the national Exchequer?

It was agreed by the Government, including my right hon. Friends at the Treasury, that we should work on the basis of a sum of relevant expenditure for general grant of £852 million in 1963–64. I looked on that as a quite substantial increase, 5½ per cent. over the present year. If I were to urge that the formula should be changed, I do not think I should be very popular in certain quarters.

Essex is particularly proud of its record in education over the last five years. Owing to the exceptional building and exceptional population increase, should not my right hon.

I do not want to be flippant, because I know the problems of Essex and many other authorities. As my hon. Friend has said, Essex has had a very fine record in education over many years, but if I were to make selective arrangements under the general grant procedure for counties in accordance with the quality of their problems I should defeat the purpose of the whole system.

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Education (1) what consideration has been given by the United Kingdom National Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation to the provisions of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation convention against discrimination in education; and what recommendations it has made about fulfilling in this country the provisions of Article 5 of the convention relating to the importance of education in racial tolerance in schools;

The main purpose of the U.N.E.S.C.O. Convention is to ensure that all pupils have equal opportunities for education. This is inherent in Her Majesty's Government's educational policies and in our educational legislation, and I see no need to consult the U.K. National Commission of U.N.E.S.C.O. on the provisions of this convention.

Is the Minister aware that that is a rather disappointing and unimaginative reply? Is he aware that the Government keep on telling my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and others who suggest legislation against racial discrimination that this is a matter which must be dealt with by education? In the light of those comments from the Government, would they not consider, for example, encouraging special courses for teachers in the many schools where there are nowadays a great many Commonwealth immigrant children?

I am well aware of the importance of this matter concerning immigrants, not least from my constituency experience. I believe that the record of schools in this matter is good, and admirable work is done also by the Council for Education in World Citizenship through the provision of lectures and material. The hon. Member and I are absolutely agreed about the importance of this matter. I am merely a little doubtful whether it would make a suitable individual item in a school syllabus. Surely, racial tolerance is something that should inform the whole of the school syllabus and should not be regarded as a special subject.

Would the Minister agree that small children have absolutely no racial prejudice whatever and play quite happily with children of another colour? The trouble arises as the American song says:

"If you can be taught before it's too late, Before you are six or seven or eight,

To hate all the people your relatives hate,

If you can be taught to be afraid of people whose skins are a different shade."

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right when he says that in schools British-born children and West Indian children, for example, play happily side by side. I believe that as the years go on it will not be long before it is a regularly accepted practice for children with different colour skins to attend one another's birthday parties. That will be the sign that integration is developing.

asked the Minister of of Education if he is aware of the considerable differences in the amount of grants made to students by different local education authorities; and if, as a preliminary to legislation, he will institute an inquiry into the matter.

All authorities make awards in accordance with the Education Act, 1962, and Regulations made under it, which impose a duty in respect of students with specified qualifications attending recognised courses and also prescribe the level of grants. The Act leaves to the authorities discretion as to other students and other courses and I do not propose to interfere with that discretion or to suggest a change in the law.

This information is needed urgently because many students attending art colleges cannot get financial assistance. Will the Minister reconsider his Answer, hold an inquiry and get the information for which I ask? If he does, we can possibly put before him proposals whereby students who choose the arts as a subject will not be left out.

The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that this matter was fully discussed during the passage of the 1962 Act. I appreciate that the decisions of education authorities in relation to nonequivalent courses—that is principally further education courses below degree standard—will vary, but the courses cover such a wide range that it would not be practicable to prescribe suitable awards by regulation. I am not yet convinced that the inquiry would be worth while, but if the hon. Member would like to see me or write to me about it I will, of course, be perfectly ready to discuss the matter with him.