asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will introduce legislation to make the University Grants Committee responsible to Parliament in respect of public expenditure;

This matter has been under examination by the Committee of Public Accounts and I would like an opportunity of considering its Report.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that such vast sums of public money are being spent by these bodies without any accountability?

This is a matter on which many varied and different views are strongly held, but I think that it is only reasonable, as we know that the Public Accounts Committee's Report is shortly to come out, for me to have an opportunity of considering it before I decide what to do.

While I understand that the inquiry may well be necessary, may I ask the Secretary of State nevertheless to keep very carefully in mind the evidence given to the Robbins Committee that the rest of the world looks with admiration at this method of injecting Government finance while re- taining the independence of universities, and it should be tampered with only with very great care?

Yes, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend, without prejudice to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, not appreciate that there is an overwhelming need for some form of democracy? The question asked for legislation. Is my right hon. Friend not aware that some kind of democracy must be put into this machinery in a new form? Will he keep his mind open in that respect at least?

This exchange from both sides of the House has demonstrated what I said earlier, that strong views are held on this matter but the views are not always in agreement. Since I believe that the Report is due to be published next Tuesday, it would be more sensible for me not to express a strong personal view.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the future of voluntary service by young people within Great Britain.

A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Would my hon. Friend agree that this has been one of the most exciting changes in youth work in recent years, and that if we are to make the best of the possibilities there must be the fullest consultation with the many people at national and local level who have been involved in making a success of developments in that work?

I agree that it is exciting work and I am going to great pains to consult as many people as possible before announcing any changes.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek power to ensure the satisfactory use of university, college, and school facilities and accommodation during the vacations.

I am extremely anxious to ensure what my hon. Friend has in mind, and we are making definite progress in this direction. But I think that we shall do better by strong encouragement rather than by seeking new powers.

Would my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is an urgent need for a nation-wide O & M inquiry into the use of college staff and buildings, and that an all-the-year-round use of college facilities could greatly increase our output of trained personnel?

I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend has in mind in the second part of his supplementary question, but I do not think that a nation-wide investigation would be suitable because different kinds of colleges have such different problems. But we know that the universities, the colleges of education, and the technical colleges have different types of external or internal inquiry going on into the utilisation of buildings.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what public provision is now made to meet the need for nursery school teachers; and what steps is he taking to increase the supply.

Some 20 colleges of education offer courses designed to prepare students for work with children of the nursery or nursery-infant age range. The number of students taking such courses is rising year by year, as student numbers generally expand.

Would my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to improve facilities for nursery training and play groups, and would he seriously consider the provision of special grants to areas like South Bedfordshire, where there is a phenomenally high birth rate?

I am sure that we are all in agreement with the general purpose of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question. This is a matter of priority. We have to attend to the equally, if not more, pressing needs of the infant school range. But we are doing everything we can to encourage, within the limits of our resources, the kind of advance my hon. Friend indicated.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will include St. John's Church of England Voluntary Controlled Junior, Mixed and Infant's School in the next educational building programme for Bristol.

No, Sir.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again, because the school is on an island site surrounded by hurtling traffic and road proposals now being considered may well make life impossible for it in future.

I will look at that again, although I am told that the road improvements should improve safety because pedestrian subways are being provided. However, the school has not appeared yet in any of the lists of local authority schools for replacement, and certainly the local authority does not regard it as in the most urgent three or four of its projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimates he has made of the numbers of young people who will be seeking admission to British universities for the year 1967–68 and the numbers of vacant university places which will be available.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 2nd November, 1966, to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro).—[Vol. 735, c. 125.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not seeking to compensate for the shortsighted reductions in the university building programme by excluding foreign and Commonwealth students, and is he aware that considerable resentment has been caused by the Government seeking to save the small sum of £2 million by shoving up the fees for foreign and Commonwealth students from £70 to £250 in one fell swoop?

As to the latter part of the supplementary question, there are a number of Questions on that subject later on the Order Paper and I shall reply to them in due time. As to the implication of the first part of the supplementary question, there has been no such cut in the building programme as the hon. Member appeared to imply. The essential fact is that in the universities we are already about 2,000 above the Robbins' targets, which at the time when they were published and accepted by a previous Government were thought to be extremely ambitious

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware that clinical teachers in the universities continue to be dissatisfied with the failure to keep their salaries in line with those of their colleagues in the National Health Service; and whether he will now announce his proposals to deal with this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he now has for bringing the salaries of university clinical staffs into line with comparable remuneration in the National Health Service.

The increases effective from 1st October last which my right hon. Friend announced on 15th December maintain the relationship between the pay of university clinical teachers and that of National Health Service hospital doctors. Any long-term adjustment of that relationship will be a matter for consideration by the new machinery for determining the salaries of all university academic staff.

While I am very grateful to the hon. Member for that reply, may I ask whether it does not mean that with a rise back-dated to 1st October last the clinical teachers are lagging about two years behind the hospital staff in their pay increase? Is this a proper way to treat a service which is indispensable to the education of our future doctors, and should not the—

Order. Questions, however important, must be brief.

I agree that there is disparity here, but, as announced on 15th December, the university clinical teachers are to receive an increase which will reflect the award to the hospital doctors and through which they will recover much of the lost ground. On the other hand, we must remember that this is a case of dual source payment, by both universities and the National Health Service, and I would imagine that this would be part of the consideration given by the new machinery for deciding the rate of payments to university staffs generally.

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the grievance is the time-lag to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, and can he assure the House that the new arrangements will make sure that these very important teachers move in line with the hospital doctors and not two years afterwards?

I cannot anticipate the consideration which the body set up to make the new arrangements will give to this, but I would certainly hope that what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested would happen—very much so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many university clinical teachers have relinquished their appointments and have emigrated in 1965 and 1966, respectively.

Eighteen teachers of clinical medicine in 1964–65 according to the universities' returns to the U.G.C. Figures for 1965–66 are not yet available.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these figures denote the dissatisfaction in this branch of the university service, and will he take steps to ensure that the cause of the dissatisfaction is removed in order to prevent the brain drain from becoming a torrent?

I agree that we should all do everything we can to staunch the brain drain, but I would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the total number of clinical teachers in 1964–65 was 1,442, so that the loss represented 1·2 per cent. over the academic year. This is a gross figure. We must also remember that some came from abroad to take up appointments here.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools in the country do not yet conform to the principles laid down in paragraph 8 of his Department's Circular 7/65 on the Education of Immigrants; and whether he will make a statement.

In January, 1966, there were 313 schools in which immigrants formed more than one-third of the total roll. It is for the local education authorities to consider what might be done to reduce the proportion of immigrants in these schools. My information is that the majority of authorities agree that it is desirable to impose some limits on the proportion of immigrant children in a school and are seeking to achieve this in various ways.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is still a rather depressing figure, and can he say what steps he is taking to speed local authorities on?

I will send my hon. Friend a copy of the circular that we sent out. This is essentially a matter for the local authorities themselves, but we have had discussions and I should like to embark on further discussions with some of the authorities with which the problem is greatest. We hope very much that these local authorities will see the sense of dispersing if we are to provide integrated schools, which I am sure is the object of all of us.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that carrying out effectively the recommendations of the Ministry imposes considerable additional cost on the local authority concerned? Is he considering ways and means by which local authorities can be helped to meet the cost?

This is a consideration that we have borne in mind, but I believe that dispersal can be carried out in many ways and best at the point of entry of the child into the school, and in those cases it is not necessarily costly.

Has not the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) a real point here in calling attention to the relatively small response of local authorities? Where there are disagreements, ought not these to be argued out at the Ministry so that people know what the policy is and we have a definite line on the subject?

We know what the policy is. I agree that it is a very important point, which is why I am about to embark on a new series of discussions with the appropriate authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that Commonwealth immigrants admitted to this country on school-teacher vouchers receive suitable training to enable them to take up teaching posts in British schools.

The Department has sponsored four full-time courses of 15 months' duration for such immigrant teachers, 65 teachers are at present attending these. We are reviewing the need for any further provision of this type in the light of the experience already gained.

Would my hon. Friend agree that a large number of Commonwealth immigrants who came in on teaching vouchers are still doing unskilled jobs? Would he further agree that the ideal would be that one of the three following things should happen: first, immigrants who want to come here on teaching vouchers should be told that they probably will not be able to get jobs as teachers; secondly, only immigrant teachers with qualifications that are suitable for English schools should be allowed in; thirdly, as a matter of routine all immigrants who come here on teaching vouchers should receive suitable training? Can my hon. Friend say how this is likely to be achieved?

I cannot agree that there are many teachers coming in who cannot get employment. When I examined all the cases brought to our attention I found that, generally speaking, the great difficulty is language. It is essential for a teacher to be understood by the children he or she is trying to teach. However, if my hon. Friend has any specific cases in mind I shall be most anxious to look at them individually.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the qualifications for teachers in some Commonwealth and foreign countries are quite different from the qualifications that we expect here, and that some well-informed people have expressed the view that many of the people coming in on these vouchers could not profit from our teacher-training courses?

I think that there may have been something in that a year or two ago, but since we made it well understood that we have to maintain professional standards in our own teaching profession and adjusted our own regulations accordingly, I think there is less cause for concern.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to remedy the educational deficiencies disclosed in the first report of the National Child Development Study.

The findings of this interesting study were taken fully into account by the Plowden Council whose Report I am now considering.

This is a unique study in the length and depth of child development. It has shown great value already and has great prospective value. Is it not highly desirable that it should continue? In view of the evidence it has shown of the significant number of children with special learning difficulties, will the right hon. Gentleman advise the local authorities as to the appropriate age of transfer to special schools?

I agree about the extreme value of this study, which was largely financed by my Department in conjunction with two others. I will consider the question of continuation of the study. As to a recommendation on the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I would prefer to consider all the recommendation of this study in the light of those of the Plowden Report. Practically all of them were taken into account by the Plowden Council.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the findings of the study were one of the most important contributions to the Appendix to the Plowden Council's Report? Will he bear in mind that we on this side of the House attach the highest importance to this study continuing?

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I would mention that, whereas the Appendix to the Report contains only a summary of the study, a full report will be published this month.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made, is making, or will make comparability studies of the educational progress and achievement of the abler children in grammar and in comprehensive schools.

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, both in the national interest and in the interest of the ablest children, it is highly desirable that such comparability studies should be made and that, for them to be made, it is essential that some grammar schools of high quality should continue to co-exist with comprehensive schools?

No, Sir. In this developing situation it is impossible to make detailed comparative studies like this because, in an area where selective schools still exist, comprehensive schools are not properly comprehensive because they are being creamed of their top ability while, on the other hand, when a school becomes comprehensive, a comparability study becomes impossible. The situation is moving in a manner which precludes this kind of study.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of comprehensive education is to develop the progress and achievement of all children and not merely the ablest ones?

I agree. It is the strong impression of those most concerned that the ablest children do not suffer in nonselective schools, whereas we know that a great number of less able children suffer from going to selective schools.

Does not the Secretary of State agree that to make such a revolutionary change in the educational pattern should have better statistics to support it than merely the opinions of right hon. and hon. Members opposite?

This is not a question of statistics and the Question on the Order Paper concerned certain types of education research. The simple fact is that this decision—whether or not to maintain the 11-plus—is not one which can be taken by researchers. It must be taken by the Government—and, of course, a similar decision was taken by the previous Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, irrespective of party, many people are particularly concerned about the mathematics and science teaching for the ablest pupils if we have too great a dispersal of skilled sixth form teaching resources?

The shortage of mathematics and science teachers existed long before the arrival of the Government and has been a persistent problem for many years. The size of sixth forms is one of the things to take into account in deciding whether to approve schemes or not. We made that clear in Circular 10/65.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is aware of the handicaps suffered by widows, separated and divorced wives in relation to student awards; and whether he will make further proposals to encourage recruitment.

I do not consider that the present rules governing awards constitute a handicap in the cases quoted.

On what does the hon. Gentleman base that curious remark? Has not he received representations on this matter from the National Union of Teachers?

Students independent of their parents and others—single widows, separated and divorced wives—are treated on the same basis if the comparison is with married women students, and I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a consequence of a recommendation of the Committee on Grants to Students, under the chairmanship of Sir Colin Anderson, in 1960. We are continually looking at these cases. It is not an easy matter. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to see me about it I would be glad to discuss it with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend the alternative method of assessment for student grants, now applicable to widows, to separated and to divorced wives.

This concession was introduced last year in the context of the abolition of the National Insurance earnings rule in relation to widows' pensions. My right hon. Friend does not propose to extend it.

Why has the Minister of State taken this rather obdurate attitude in view of the representations he has received? Is not he aware that this situation is creating anomalies, with widows and separated wives working side by side and getting different awards? Is not he further aware that some women are being discouraged and inhibited from recruitment as a result?

If the alternative arrangement were extended to separated and divorced wives, it would be difficult to resist making a similar concession to other students with an income of their own, including single and married men. The whole category could come in with those the right hon. Gentleman mentions. This would create new disparities in overcoming one.

If the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the difficulties will he receive further representations? There is a genuine problem here and he appears to gloss over it.

I am aware of the feeling and I am continually looking at cases of alleged hardship. I am very willing to meet any hon. Members on either side or to hear representations. We are looking at this matter all the time to see what we can do about these very difficult anomalies.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now review the existing regulations for nursery schools.

My right hon. Friend will be considering this whole question in the light of the recommendations of the Plowden Council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a tremendous need for nursery school places which, in most cases, is not being satisfied? May we know when there is to be any real change or relaxation of the existing restrictions on nursery school places?

We certainly cannot know that today. Although we agree in principle with what my hon. Friend has said, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is entirely a question of economic priorities.

Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to the private nursery schools, which are suffering a great deal of handicap because of the Selective Employment Tax?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards the playing of games in schools.

Physical education like other parts of the curriculum is primarily a matter for local education authorities and schools. It is generally accepted that the curriculum should include a balanced programme of physical education, which would include games, and I agree with this view. I also believe that pupils should be introduced to as wide a variety of choice in sport and recreation as is practically possible.

As a former "knight of the whistle" will my hon. Friend advise local education authorities to give boys a choice of all codes of football? Is he aware that there has been a sustained campaign for many years by some headmasters to change from one code to another? Will he take the example of Hull, where we play all games—with eleven a side, fifteen a side and, not least, thirteen a side?

I know that Hull is doing very well these days. I am constantly advising local authorities about this matter. I agree that choice in matters of leisure and sport is the end product of education.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the great disadvantage of children in primary schools—and I speak as the parent of one; no, two—is that they have no playing fields to play upon? Will he do all he can to see that children in primary schools have the advantage of being able to play games.

This is the first time I have heard of a recount in the Chamber itself. As the father of four children, I agree with the hon. Gentleman I think that we need many more sporting facilities so that all primary children have an opportunity to get out into the open and play games.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the net increase in the number of full-time teachers in primary and secondary schools between January, 1965, and January, 1966, and in the corresponding two previous years.

Approximately 4,300, 5,300 and 4,900 in the three years ended January, 1964, 1965 and 1966 respectively. I expect the figures in the subsequent two years to be 5,000 and 7,000.

Is not that decline from 5,300 to 4,900 disappointing and is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very real concern caused by his recent circular on the quota and on teacher supply? What does he think has happened to the missing teachers, as it were, and has his attention been drawn to the real anxiety about the numbers of those receiving three-year grants who go through colleges of education and then opt out for some activity other than teaching?

That was a very large number of questions in one. The fact is that we had one short period in which wastage produced a slight drop in the annual increase. But looking ahead it is perfectly clear, and it is clear from the last two figures which I quoted, that the huge investment which we have made in teacher training is now beginning to show very considerable dividends. When discussing full-time teachers we must remember the important and growing addition to the teaching force which, I am glad to say, is made by part-timers. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, for demographic reasons we are in the most difficult period at the moment, but I think that can see some easement in two or three years' time.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any present deficiency in teacher numbers is a byproduct of the failure of teacher-training provision under a previous Administration and that there are now healthy trends which show that the position will be rectified in a very few years?

It is certainly the case that there has been a massive and dramatic increase in teacher-training facilities in the last two years and my hon. Friend is quite right to say that, although we are now in a period of hard slogging because of the very rapid increase in the birth rate, looking ahead two or three years we can see a dramatic improvement.

If we are to argue about this, is it not a fact that the college of education building programme for the first year of the party opposite was less than our building programme for 1964–65? However, can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a more serious question? Is it not quite clear from the figures which he has given that it will be highly undesirable if there is a hold-up in the provision of university places compared with places in colleges of education, because nothing could be worse than that would-be university students should go to colleges of education and take places which might otherwise be occupied by those who could swell the teaching force in the schools?

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means when he talks about a hold-up in university places. I have already said in answer to a previous Question that we are already well ahead of the Robbins target for universities and I think that we will continue to be so. As for teacher supply, the only acid and important test is an increase in the number of teachers per year. The figures which I have quoted show that the increase this year will be much larger than in any year over the last few years, and I think this improvement will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary school classes in England and Wales contain more than 50 pupils.

Seventy-one.

Does not that Answer, for which I am grateful, suggest that Homer was nodding when the right hon. Gentleman said at the N.U.S. conference on 28th November that we still have not merely hundreds but thousands of primary schools with classes not only over 40, but over 50?

I confess that I do not have a word-by-word recollection of what I said to that rather stormy audience of the National Union of Students, but, if my words were precisely as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, they seem to have contained an element of exaggeration.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will consider publishing regular detailed progress reports of the steps being taken by each local education authority to introduce comprehensive secondary education.

I am afraid that the process of preparing and implementing schemes of reorganisation does not lend itself to this kind of regular analysis.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that with local government reorganisation fairly imminent it is especially important that local education authorities, particularly in neighbouring areas of a conurbation, should have very full details of the schemes now being implemented by their neighbours?

I certainly agree with that proposition, which, I would have thought, was as much a matter for local co-operation as for national action on my part. All I was saying was that with 162 authorities, all of them at different stages of preparation or implementation, it would be very difficult to give, say, monthly detailed reports of exactly what stage they had reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the proportion of women to men students entering colleges of education in 1966; and if he will make a statement.

I would like to see the proportion of men students in the colleges rise to about 35 per cent. by 1970. In fact the number of men entrants was 50 per cent. greater this year than it was three years ago, but the equally rapid increase in women students meant that the proportion of men remained at 28 per cent.

Bearing in mind that the Plowden Report says that in 1965 there were only 97 men out of 33,000 infant teachers and that 40 per cent. of all primary schools had no men teachers, what further steps is the Department taking to encourage recruitment of men teachers, particularly in the light of the Plowden recommendations on middle schools?

I agree that an increase in the proportion of men entering training would help the overall starting position in more ways than one. We have sent to the heads of schools urging them and their staffs to draw the attention of boy pupils in sixth forms to the value of the higher education which colleges of education can provide and also the preparation which they give for a valuable career in teaching. It is perhaps too soon to evaluate the results of this special appeal, but it is encouraging to note that the number of men applicants—[Interruption.] May I join the general welcome given by the House to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). It is encouraging to note that the number of new entrants—[Laughter.]—currently registered with the clearing house—[Laughter.]—is about 750 more than at the same time last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance is given by his Department to teachers in secondary schools responsible for sex education and instruction in adult relationships.

Advice is given in the Department's pamphlets on "Health in Education", of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy, and on "Health Education", which is now being revised.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he not agree that where parents refuse to accept this responsibility towards their children, then the teaching profession can play a very valuable part in helping children over this hurdle? Is he aware that some schools deal with this very well, while others do not tackle it at all? Will he assure the House that he will keep his eye on this problem?

I entirely agree that this is a matter of importance and I think that it is well understood to be so by most of the teaching profession. I hope that the revised copy of "Health Education", which will shortly be completed, will help to produce the result which my hon. Friend requires.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have now opened nursery classes; how many others intend to do so in the foreseeable future; and how many teachers have returned to teaching as a result since his circular on nursery classes was published.

I cannot at present add to the Answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 16th June, [Vol. 729, c. 304.] but the latest figures should be available in March.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and ask him if, in view of the recent publication of the Plowden Report, he will give this matter very urgent consideration? Will he bear in mind that the nation can have the whole of Plowden providing that we give up one Polaris nuclear submarine? Will the Minister press for this in the Cabinet?

That goes slightly wider than the immediate question, but I will certainly bear all of these diverse matters in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Sciénce how many schools have been visited by the Public Schools Commission; and to what extent reports on public schools by inspectors of his Department have been submitted to it.

I do not expect to be kept in touch with the Commission's day-to-day work. Reports on public schools by H.M. Inspectors have been made available to the Commission only by permission of their governing bodies.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the thoroughness and excellence of these reports? In view of the financial demands of the Plowden Commission, has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind about how much money is to be available to implement any recommendation that the Commission may make?

No. Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reports he has received on the work for young people performed by the training ship "Foudroyant"; and if he will increase the grant paid by his Department to this enterprise.

I am aware of the good work done by this establishment; the grant for 1967–68 will be announced in April.

Can my hon. Friend take an early opportunity of visiting the "Foudroyant" to see the work that she does?

If I am invited I will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further steps he is taking to implement the Albermarle Report; and whether he will make a statement.

The main recommendations have been implemented. In particular, the provisional target of 1,300 full-time leaders by 1966 has been reached. The development of the Youth Service to meet changing needs is a continuing process. In this the recently reconstituted Youth Service Development Council will review the whole service and, through subcommittees examine specific problems in depth. Two of these are under way, dealing with immigrants and the Youth Service, and the relationship of the Youth Service to formal education. The third subject will be the relationship of the Youth Service to the community as a whole.

In the light of that helpful reply, will my hon. Friend also take another look at the unhelpful replies previously given to our questions about the Inverliever project?

We were asked about that and in consequence of the promise I made to the House I am looking at it further.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science to what extent it is Government policy that integration of direct grant schools into the comprehensive system will involve their being allowed to continue a selective system of entry.

Government policy on this matter was laid down in Circular 10/65, of which I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Is it true that my right hon. Friend has chosen to regard the Leeds direct grant school as fully integrated into the comprehensive system, which it is not because three-quarters of the students are selected at 11? Is it not a fact that he also said that he would like to see such schemes extended to other areas?

I said no such thing about Leeds. What I said was that I noted with interest the agreement between the direct grant school and the authority. The agreement does not provide for selective entry but an unselective entry for certain pupils at a certain age.

Is it not a fact that the Leeds authority has proposed to take up places not at 11-plus but at the sixth form level for those who could not get courses that they would otherwise wish to get in their present schools? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side would regard this as a reasonable compromise and that we would most profoundly object to any attempt by the party opposite to upset this sort of proposal?

This is their suggestion. I was asked to say whether I regarded this as a full integration of the school. It is not and that is all that there is to it. The right hon. Gentleman accurately describes the scheme which was approved by the authority and the school. I noted this with interest and would certainly like to see how it works.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an unreasonable compromise? Is he further aware that it does not seem reasonable to many of us on this side, and that we are viewing with concern the fact that the Leeds education authority had this proposal put to it by the Ministry? Does he not agree that this proposal is nothing like the integration of the direct grant school into the State system?

Once again I must insist that no one has mentioned the word "integration" in connection with this. The school has not been integrated into the system. No one pretends that this is so. As to the inception of this proposal, this is the first time that I have heard that it came from the Department. As far I am concerned, this was a proposal which came to me from, I may add, a Labour local education authority, in agreement with the school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the forward planning of allocation of resources to the schools, if it is his policy that a large enough increase is to be allocated to enable primary schools to meet the educational needs of the pupils in them.

It is my policy, within the resources available, to meet educational needs in all parts of the educational system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Plowden Report has stated that there is no educational justification whatever for such a wide disparity as exists today between the money available per pupil in the primary school and the money available per pupil in the secondary school? What does he propose to do about this?

I am well aware that the Plowden Report states that, and makes a large number of other recommendations. I have very great sympathy with the priority which the Plowden Report wishes to give to primary schools, but one cannot pick out one particular sector of education and give it some overriding priority. In the short term, as I shall say in answer to a Written Question, I am in very broad sympathy with the tenor and philosophy of the Plowden Report.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware of the very grave difficulties in which primary school teachers are seeking to do their jobs in rural areas, particularly Cornwall? Will he look at this as being a special problem, distinct from the national problem?

No, Sir. One must look at this as a national problem. I have said repeatedly that I have been responsible for the school building programme for only two years. For the previous 13 the party opposite was responsible. It is for this reason that I have said that, after we allow for basic needs, the improvement or replacement of primary schools should have priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will amend the rules of the committee responsible for the granting and withholding of export licences for works of art so as to enable museums and London galleries to acquire important works which are not already represented in any public gallery.

I have this matter under consideration. I am most anxious that both our regional and London museums and galleries should have the fullest opportunity to acquire important works of art.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many important historic objects, which are part of our national heritage, are leaving this country in great quantities, although our museums which do not possess such objects are most anxious to acquire them? Does she not agree that it is therefore necessary to take early action to check this flow by giving new terms of reference to the Reviewing Committee?

I would not entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are looking into this matter but we have always to bear in mind that London is a great international art-dealing centre. We have to keep a proper balance between our domestic interests and these other considerations.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his visit to Rome.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Rome.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Italian Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his recent talks in Rome with the Prime Minister of Italy and other representatives of the Italian Government.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Rome from 15th to 17th January for talks with Signor Moro, President of the Council of Ministers of Italy, Signor Nenni, Vice President of the Council, and Signor Fanfani, the Italian Foreign Minister. Our visit was the first of the round of visits to Heads of Government of the Six in which, as I explained to the House in my statement of 10th November, my right hon. Friend and I will be exploring whether the conditions exist for fruitful negotiations leading to British membership of the European Economic Community. We are most grateful to the Italian Ministers for having enabled us to discuss with them the problems that will be faced in any eventual negotiations. I think our visit was a successful one.

While recognising that the Prime Minister clearly does not want to lay Britain's negotiating cards on the table face upwards at this stage, nevertheless may I ask him to tell the House what political and economic concessions the Italian Government thought might be entailed by our joining the E.E.C.?

What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his Question is important. We were not in a negotiating posture and there was no suggestion by them of any political or economic concessions that would be necessary. But we went very fully over the ground of the principal difficulties

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a very warm welcome in the country for what The Guardian today called a new pattern of open discussion, without commitment on either side? While there are clear benefits to be derived from this, will he take care to avoid a situation where the House is not kept fully informed of developments which are going beyond discussions?

I agree about the phrase, without commitments on either side. I am a little worried about the word "open" being taken too literally.

Can my right hon. Friend say, after his training spell in Rome, that he is now fitter for his tougher time in Paris? Can he tell us whether the decisions reached at Rome will prove helpful in discussions with General de Gaulle?

The discussions in Rome were a very useful start and will be of great assistance to our discussions in all of the other five capitals. No decisions as such were taken in Rome because I have undertaken to report back to this House on any decision that the Government take after they review the results of these visits.

At the Press conference in Rome the Prime Minister was reported as saying that he was against the domination of European industrial life by United States business. Was that intended to be taken seriously, and if so, what precise proposals does the Prime Minister have in mind to avoid this situation?

What I said in Rome I said two years ago and have said a number of times since. I said that our loyal membership of N.A.T.O. does not mean that we for our part think it right that vital sectors particularly of the technological industries of Europe should be overrun and dominated by American firms. I had very much in mind—indeed I said a few words to show that I had—the specific factors of the Chrysler-Rootes situation in which there had been a total breakdown of management and where there was no question of selling out a technological industry. The Government have shown that they mean business about this by the way in which we have saved our own computer industry, unlike others in Europe, from the predatory actions of certain American firms.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be great satisfaction with the apparently warm reception of the British approach in Rome? May I ask him how detailed the discussions were—whether there was, for example, any discussion about the transitional phase required for British agriculture? Secondly, since he is going to Paris on Monday, I understand, would he agree that the £650 million swing-wing aircraft agreement augurs well for those discussions? Is he aware that almost all the House hopes that his talks in Paris will be as successful as those in Rome?

I hope that I should not be too far out of order if I were to offer the hon. Gentleman the congratulations of the whole House on his election yesterday and to express the confident hope that with him as leader of the Liberal Party, as with his predecessor, the relations between the party leaders in the House will continue to be as friendly as they always have been. I know that I speak also for the Leader of the Opposition.

While acknowledging that discussions of this kind are bound to be confidential to a considerable degree, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he recognises that the House would like to have rather fuller information after each visit than he felt able to give today in his main Answer to these Questions? After all, after each meeting the Press is given a considerable amount of information. I should have thought that the House of Commons was entitled to at least the same amount of information as was given to the Press.

I will certainly consider what can be done to say more to the House about these talks after each meeting. I am conscious that I failed to answer the question about what topics were discussed. There was a very full discussion about agriculture—it took, I should think, something like half the time we were there—and we stressed the very great difficulties, not least—this is what I said to the Press—the problem of the levy system with particular reference to the fact that it would mean a big change in the pattern within Europe, because, unlike the Six, we are a major food importer and it would mean a very big transfer across the exchanges. This was fully understood.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the progress of his negotiations about the possibility of British entry into the European Economic Community and what discussions have taken place with Commonwealth countries, European Free Trade Association countries and countries in the European Economic Community since 10th November.

These are not, as yet, negotiations, Sir. As the Answer to the rest of the hon. Member's Question is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a further statement about the Rhodesian situation.

asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to reopen discussions with Mr. Smith regarding a possible settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to reopen negotiations with the illegal Government of Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what conditions he now lays down for reopening negotiations with Rhodesia.

asked the Prime Minister what further steps he is taking to solve the Rhodesian dispute: and if he will make a statement.

I would refer hon. Members to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to similar Questions last Tuesday.—[Vol. 739, c. 24.]

Can the Prime Minister give a categorical denial this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government have put any pressure whatsoever on the World Health Organisation to cease supplying information to Rhodesia, as any such pressure would be contrary to the interests of both the Europeans and the Africans in Rhodesia?

With all the information available to me, I would certainly deny this. There has been no such pressure. However, in view of the hon. Member's question, I will confirm that this is so.

Should mandatory sanctions fail to achieve the Prime Minister's object—and he must have considered that possibility—would he say clearly whether the final decision on the next step of escalation will be made by Great Britain or the United Nations?

As I explained to the House in a speech of greater length than I intended, we have always sought to keep control of this matter in our own hands. We intend to do so—if by "escalation" the hon. Gentleman refers to an intensification of sanctions or any further steps to make the sanctions more effective.

May I, first, express the hope that relations between the Prime Minister and Mr. Smith will be as friendly as they have always been? Secondly, irrespective of the wisdom, for the time being, of having raised the matter in the United Nations, or, for that matter, in Trafalgar Square, does the Prime Minister realise that "no negotiations before majority rule" must mean that there will be no negotiations within the next 15 or 20 years? Is that really his policy?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening words. In fact, my personal relations with Mr. Smith have always been extremely good, and they were particularly good in our discussions on H.M.S. "Tiger". The tragedy was that when he returned to Rhodesia he was not able to make effective, as I know he would have wished to have done, the agreement which we had reached because he was under the control of some very strong extremists of a kind who perhaps were fully represented on the fringe of the crowd supporting the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) in Trafalgar Square.

Would the Prime Minister answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)? Is he aware that the United States Congress is not in favour of supporting sanctions? In view of this, it is clear that sanctions will fail. Therefore, what steps will the Prime Minister take when they fail?

The hon. Gentleman must take the responsibility of speaking for the United States Congress on this matter. I know the action taken by the United States Government. In international affairs, however, I am able to speak for the House of Commons, which supported, by a large majority, the action of Her Majesty's Government and rejected the Opposition's support of the extremist rejection of the "Tiger" agreement.

In view of the fact that there has developed a businessmen's opposition to Mr. Smith, who interpret the agreement that was not reached or signed to mean that there can be no independent rule for the coloured people of Rhodesia for at least 70 years, may we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that under no circumstances will there be any treating with such a group who are, in fact, committed to a policy of white majority rule in Rhodesia?

I do not quite understand my hon. Friend's reference to 70 years. The agreement on H.M.S. "Tiger" would have meant, on the best calculations, majority rule probably after a second General Election there, or possibly after a third; and no opposition whatever was at any time raised by Mr. Smith to that proposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h"] None at all. It is only since he got back that the extremists have been talking in terms which would mean an extension, possibly indefinitely, beyond the period envisaged on H.M.S. "Tiger", but I have not heard a reference to 70 years.

In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to retain control of the situation, would he assure us that sanctions could be removed without the consent of the Russians, as permanent Members of the Security Council, and could he say what the procedure for doing this would be?

The position is that the sanctions—international sanctions, like our own—were imposed against a situation of a threat to peace arising from a rebellion. They were not associated with any constitutional position, except the unconstitutional position of rebellion; and as soon as the rebellion were to end we would ourselves, nationally, act and, internationally, we would take the initiative in ending the sanctions, which relate only to the period of rebellion.

Is the Prime Minister aware that on Tuesday the First Secretary told me that he would give favourable consideration to my suggestion that contact should be made and encouragement given to the 3,500 people in Rhodesia who responded to an advertisement in the Rhodesia newspapers calling for implemention of the constitutional changes agreed on H.M.S. "Tiger"? What steps have been taken to give implementation to that?

I am sure that it would be the desire of all hon. Members that any of us who is capable of doing so should have friendly relations with those who have shown great courage in the face of possible victimisation, which has been going on there, in public identification with the letter in the Rhodesia Herald. Apart from any contacts which Government representatives might have, I hope that hon. Members visiting Rhodesia in future will make it their business to have association with all sections of opinion there instead of the, I believe, dangerous concentration which some Members have had with only the extremists there.

Would my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that all his future negotiations about Rhodesia will not be with a tiny minority who do not represent Rhodesia but with the leaders of the vast majority of the Rhodesian people, of whom the chief leader is Mr. Nkomo?

My hon. Friend knows as well as I do some of the difficulties arising from the divided leadership of African nationalism in Rhodesia, something I saw for myself when I had long discussions with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole on my last visit there, when it was a question of negotiations since they were in a legal position and when I had discussions with representatives of all sections of opinion, including Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole. So did my right hon. Friend on his recent visit to Salisbury, subject to the veto which Mr. Smith placed on him meeting them. At the meeting on H.M.S. "Tiger", which was of a special character and which was designed to secure a return to constitutional rule, I indicated to Mr. Smith the deSire I had to met Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole, if he would agree to release them to come to this country for that purpose and would agree to let them go back, if they wanted to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that he was correct in the reply he gave to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)? Is it not a fact that if, for example, the Russians were to veto the withdrawal of the present resolution, it would stand?

That is not our advice in relation to the situation arising where this particular resolution operates under the heading of a threat to peace, the threat having been defined as a continuation of the rebellion. I have made it clear that as far as we are concerned —and this applies to all other countries applying the sanctions—this is against the background of a rebellion and that the sanctions would come to an end when the rebellion comes to an end.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that, whereas it has always been open to the regime in Rhodesia to return to legal rule and whereas presumably that would be for a period under the 1961 Constitution, the absolute principle to which Her Majesty's Government are committed—committed to the United Nations, the Commonwealth, and this House—is that there shall be no grant of independence until majority rule is established?

1 have already made that declaration in the House. It has been confirmed on a number of occasions and it follows from the Commonwealth Conference communiqué. As I have said many times, we had to fight very hard at that Conference—against the fear of a real and dangerous breakup of the Commonwealth—to secure a further period in which we could give Mr. Smith and his colleagues a last chance to return to majority rule. That chance, tragically, was not taken, and, with some of the rumours going around and the pressures being placed on Mr. Smith, I regret that, contrary to what Mr. Smith said to me, he has not had the spunk to stand up to those extremists, despite his great confidence that he could and would do so. As a result of this, he has now been pushed into the very dangerous position of a declaration of a totally illegal and divisive republic.

As the Prime Minister has twice referred to the fact that Rhodesia constitutes a threat to international peace, would he explain how and in what way Rhodesia constitutes such a threat? Does he not know perfectly well that Rhodesia threatens nobody? [Interruption.]

This is, of course, an answer which could be given more easily in debate than at Question Time. If I were to give it in debate and if I had long enough to do so, I could not improve on some words used by the right hon. Gentleman in a stiff warning letter he sent to the then Rhodesia Government when he had responsibility, when he acted as though he had responsibility—[Interruption.]—when he said that the matter would inevitably be raised at the United Nations and when he referred to the attitude of the whole Commonwealth and of the surrounding Governments. The right hon. Gentleman must not get so inebriated with the cheers of his new friends in Trafalgar Square. He should not forget the great sense of responsibility he showed when he had responsibility for this matter.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that we are well past Question Time.

On a point of order. During these exchanges the Prime Minister kindly referred to a later Question of mine appearing on the Order Paper. In view of that reference, might I have an Answer to that Question, which could be in the form of "Yes" or "No", and be permitted to put a supplementary question?

I would naturally consider, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, whether to ask your permission to do so, Mr. SPEAKER. However, in the course of my answers to supplementary questions I did answer the hon. Gentleman's Question and I think that he will find that, from his point of view, my answer was slightly better than the "Yes" or "No" he was expecting.

rose—

Order. We cannot go back now.