asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will seek powers to implement the recommendation of the Plowden Report that, as an interim measure, Government financial assistance be given to local authorities to help establish and maintain play centres.

There is no specific recommendation relating to play centres in the Plowden Report. The Council did, however, recommend that, until enough main- tained places are available, local education authorities should be given power to give financial or other assistance to nursery groups run by non-profit-making associations. It is not proposed to reach a decision on this or other recommendations of the Council until the views of the associations of local authorities and teachers have been received.

Did not the Plowden Report say that primary schools should be used for this purpose, out of school hours, as much as possible? Would not the cost be small compared with the tremendous value to children and working mothers?

My hon. Friend will be aware that under the Education Act, 1944, there are powers to establish play centres. We should like to look at advice in the Plowden Report before taking matters further with legislation.

May I, first of all, welcome the hon. Lady the Minister of State from this side of the House? I believe that this is the first time that she has answered Questions in her new post. May I ask her how soon the Government expect to make a statement on the recommendations contained in the Plowden Report? Are they aware that we feel that the Government should make time available for a debate on the Report at an early opportunity?

The Government are well aware of the very serious nature of the proposals put forward in the Report and of the urgency of considering these as quickly as possible. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we want to obtain the advice of the bodies whom we have invited to make representations about the Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will institute an urgent survey of professional sporting stadia liable to go out of use and to recommend a policy for their alternative recreational use.

The possibility of developing football grounds for wider recreational uses is among the matters which the Football Inquiry is examining, and the principles governing these will have application to other professional sporting stadia. The regional sports councils are making an appraisal of major sports facilities.

While thanking the Minister for the reference to wider recreational uses, may I ask whether he would not agree that the Brentford-Queen's Park Rangers affair is a portent of things to come, and that if these stadia are likely to be built over, they would represent an insignificant contribution to housing, but a permanent loss of either actual or potential amenity? The Chester Committee looks only at football, not at dog tracks or race courses. Can the Minister give some further assurance?

Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

I have assured the House that the principles applying to professional football grounds will obviously apply to other professional sports grounds. It would be quite wrong to consider these in isolation, one from the other. I do not know much about the Brentford-Queen's-Park Rangers business, except that it shows that the pattern of professional sport which emerged from the last century will obviously have to change to meet new conditions.

Is not one of the troubles that these grounds are far too uncomfortable, with respect to amenities, to suit spectators as they used to?

That is very much one of the problems, into which I have asked the Chester Committee to inquire.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the development of the comprehensive system of education, he will review the method of training of teachers for this type of education.

Colleges, departments of education, Her Majesty's Inspectors and my Department have already recognised the need both for an adjustment of training courses and the organisation of special courses and conferences to meet the point which my hon. Friend has in mind.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that, in view of the change in the pattern of education which the comprehensive system is bringing, plus the raising of the school leaving age shortly, this is a matter of very great urgency?

I think that this is a matter of very great urgency. I doubt whether the main problem is a structural change in the nature of the teacher-training course. The real problem is to find a whole variety of ways—and this is what we are trying to do—of preparing teachers for what is becoming a very new and different teaching function.

Would the right hon. Gentleman in particular consider the needs of headmasters—say, the headmaster of a secondary modern school shortly to become a comprehensive school—who will find themselves managing very different institutions from those which they are managing at the moment?

I entirely agree. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that in answer to a recent Parliamentary Question I said that we were setting up a permanent working group of Her Majesty's inspectors, with, I hope, a regional organisation as well, to keep in mind precisely the point he has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to standardise the regulations for making grants for further education which at present vary from one county to another.

My right hon. Friend has given guidance to local authorities in Circular 4/66 about the exercise of their statutory discretion in this matter. He does not at present see any need to add to this.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that even between neighbouring counties there is a very great difference in the administration of these grants? Dos he appreciate that in some cases this leads to great injustice?

As of now, we do not consider that the cases of disparity of treatment warrant a major change in policy. We have indicated to local authorities that we consider it desirable that there should be consistency of approach in making these discretionary awards. However, at the moment we do not see sufficient evidence to change the policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in the establishment of the Government Meat Research Institute at Bristol University; and if he will make a statement.

Construction of the Meat Research Institute started in April, 1965, at Langford, Somerset, on a site adjacent to the Veterinary School of the University of Bristol. The work is proceeding according to plan and is expected to be finished by the end of this year. A phased transfer of research work from the Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge, will begin in August.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this project was first mooted there was some talk about the desirability of siting a substation for the Institute in Scotland, which produces most of the quality beef in this country, to which I added the desirability of siting it in Aberdeenshire, which produces most of the quality beef in Scotland? What progress has been made towards this end?

No decision about outstations has been made. I am aware of the hon. Member's interest in this matter. But it will not be possible to consider the need for out-stations until the Institute is established and has been functioning for some time.

Would my hon. Friend reconsider the whole problem with a view to having the main research station in Aberdeen, which is the centre of a farming and fishing area, and adding fish research to meat research?

Naturally we shall take fully into account everything that my hon. and learned Friend says.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has included any further projects in the school-building programme for 1967–68, in the light of the representations made to him by Salop County Council and the hon. Member for The Wrekin regarding the probable inadequacy of school facilities in the Dawley New Town area.

No, Sir. The Shropshire Local Education Authority has been told that further secondary school building at Dawley will be authorised in the 1968–69 programme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that by September, 1969, about 800 Birmingham schoolchildren will have moved into Dawley and that unless the Woodside Infants School and the Woodside Comprehensive School are begun as soon as possible there will be a very severe shortage of school places in Dawley?

If my hon. Friend's predictions are borne out, it will be open to the local authority to ask the Department to allow a start to be made before the beginning of the 1968–69 programme year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy towards the establishment of more special units for handicapped children in normal primary and secondary schools, in view of the need to help handicapped children to grow up adjusted to the wider community in which they have to live.

Our policy is that handicapped children should be educated in ordinary schools whenever possible, whether by establishing special units or classes or by making other special arrangements.

My hon. Friend is well aware of the progress which has been made in educating partially-hearing children alongside normal-hearing children. Is she satisfied that every encouragement is being given to experiments with other handicapped children?

We are well aware of my hon. Friend's great interest in the problems of handicapped children. It is our impression that there is a constant move towards educating other handicapped children as far as possible in ordinary schools and that there is a constant increase in the number of special classes as well as special units for other handicapped children.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied with the pay structure of those who are teaching mentally handicapped children as against those dealing with physically handicapped children?

I think that it can always be argued that there should be additional staff for mentally-handicapped children, but the general position in the staff ratio for handicapped children has shown an improvement over recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers.

I have more than once invited suggestions for the most appropriate form of consultative machinery. One educational body has made a proposal which I am considering, and I understand that others may reach me shortly. I am now sending a specific invitation to other bodies concerned. I should welcome the widest possible expression of views from educational interests.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask whether he is aware of the very strong feeling which exists among members of teachers' organisations about the need for reconvening the N.A.C.? Will he assure the House that, whatever other changes are made in the character of that body, it will have a representative character?

I am very well aware of the strong feelings on this matter. On the other hand, I think that it is widely agreed that the N.A.C., in its original form, was too large and too cumbersome and, perhaps, spent too much time on producing rather long reports which came out after Governments had had to take a decision. But I am anxious to try to find the right form of consultative machinery, and that is why I now propose to ask all the bodies concerned for their advice.

While recognising the force of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the N.A.C. in its original form, may I ask him whether he will accept that there is a strong feeling, on both sides of the House I believe, that this body should be reconvened in some form in view of the large amount of fresh evidence to the effect that such a body should be considered, especially in the light of the Plowden Report?

I would accept that. I would only say on the other side that it is 1½ years since I first invited suggestions for a more efficient consultative body from the various organisations concerned in view of the admitted imperfections of the old N.A.C., and it is only very recently that I have begun to receive suggestions. Certainly I would not dispute what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Is it not a most extraordinary time to be without the benefit of the advice of some such council? Is it necessary to take all this time to reconstitute it?

It is certainly not an extraordinary time, for this reason, that the last report of the N.A.C. was in June, 1965, and since then I am glad to say that the Government, through their teacher-training policies, have very considerably exceeded the targets set in that report. Therefore, no time has been lost in terms of the crux of the matter, which is trying to find more teachers.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reply he has sent to the representations made to him by distinguished academics, Commonwealth representatives, student bodies and others about his decision to increase fees for overseas students studying in Great Britain.

I explained, as I have done to this House, the reasons which led the Government to take this decision and the measures which are being taken to cushion the effect in particular groups of case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is still a great deal of anxiety about the detailed and long-term implications of his decision? Can he assure us that the matter will be clarified in detail at the first possible opportunity?

Yes. I am well aware of the detailed worries as opposed to the basic principle of the decision. I hope that it will not be long before I am able to announce more details of various easements which we have discussed in public.

Would the Secretary of State say what representations he has received about refugee students? Would he bear in mind that if all fees are raised it will be necessary for some money to be made available for students in this category?

That is one of a number of very important detailed points which have been put to me. I hope that the short-term easements which I mentioned a week ago today and the long-term review of the situation to which I also referred last week will have these points very much in mind.

As we are receiving by almost every post letters from students who want their individual cases considered by somebody, when will the Minister redeem his promise to me to let us have at least the machinery through which we can move?

I hope very shortly. There is a meeting today between the Departments concerned and the British Council, which is, and should be, heavily involved in this. I hope, therefore, that I shall be able to reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's letter and the letters of other hon. Members within a reasonably short space of time.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now seek to establish a special fund to assist unsponsored private students in need to meet the increase in university fees proposed for overseas students.

I have already announced my decision to do so.

Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate how much he estimates will be required for this special fund and how it will be applied in individual cases? Will it be applied on a means test basis, or what? Will unsponsored private students, despite the fund, have to pay anything out of their own pockets if they are in genuine need, or will it all be largely defrayed out of the fund?

The likely amount of the fund is the subject of the next Question, but I do not want to evade the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. At the moment, I cannot say what the likely amount will be. Referring to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, the object of the fund is mainly to help those unsponsored students who might otherwise be in difficulty. As I cannot announce details, for the reasons which I gave earlier, the best thing that I can do is to make it clear that the object of the fund is to ensure that no student in this country currently on a course will have to leave that course and go back to his own country because of the increase in fees.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total estimated cost of the special fund to be established to aid overseas students who will suffer hardship as a result of the decision to increase overseas students' fees.

I cannot add to what I said about the proposed fund in the debate last Thursday.

How can the Secretary of State continue to give bland assurances that the savings from this cut will be £5¼ million if he does not know how much he has spent on this fund—or does he think that the fund will be so small that it will not nullify what he will save by his parsimony in general?

The figure that my hon. Friend has quoted has nothing to do with this fund. The figure that he quoted was the saving which we estimated for a full year. When we are discussing this fund we are discussing students already in this country, and that would relate to savings for 1967–68. So the figure that he quoted was not strictly relevant. But even if we make the most generous provision for any likely hardship that would result in the case of students already in this country—as I think we shall—I calculate that the greater part of the saving will still be maintained.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that there is in the Government's mind no intention to have a fund to meet hardship for future students, and that his idea is that the fund is to relate exclusively to those students who are already here?

The fund which we are now discussing is intended to meet cases of hardship in respect of students who are already here. In connection with students who are not yet here but who may wish to apply and who may be deterred from applying or coming, I repeat the assurances that I gave last Thursday and have given before, that I shall be keeping the long-term question under review with the Minister for Overseas Development, in collaboration with universities and local education authorities, and other persons concerned with the long-term flow of overseas students.

Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the nature of the long-term review? Many of us are very perturbed about this aspect of the problem. Is it not right to say that since this is really an overseas aid problem the overseas aid should be increased and this matter should be taken off the Vote of the Department of Education and Science?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says on this matter. When I spoke about the long-term review I made it clear that this could not be simply an educational review but must be a review carried out in conjunction with the Ministry for Overseas Development. Beyond that I cannot go at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what financial assistance he intends to provide for the Council for Education in World Citizenship during 1967–68.

My Department and the Scottish Education Department will provide the Council with a grant of £1,080 in 1967–68. The Council approached me last September for an increase in grant. I replied that this would not be possible during the period of immediate economic strain, but I invited the chairman in November to provide me with fuller and more up-to-date financial details. I received these this week, and shall now consider them sympathetically.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the Government's commitment to the United Nations and the fact that this is the only organisation working extensively within secondary education to promote interest in the United Nations, the grant should be significantly increased at the first possible opportunity?

I would not like to commit myself precisely to the last words of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I have a great deal of sympathy with what he has in mind. My hon. Friend will know better than anybody that there is a long history to this matter and that for many years the Council did not take all the grant that the Government offered, in consequence of which the grant was cut savagely in 1957. There is, therefore, a rather complicated background to this matter. I repeat, however, that I have great sympathy with the aims of this organisation and now that the chairman has been kind enough to let me have detailed financial considerations, I will examine them very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the course in languages and related social studies was allowed to start at the Holborn College of Law, Languages and Commerce on the understanding that it would lead to a Council of National Academic Awards' Honours Bachelor of Arts degree without making sure that the grant of degree status for the course would not be subsequently refused by the Council, as it now has been; and what action he proposes to take about students whose careers are likely to suffer as a result.

The course was started before the Council for National Academic Awards was established and I₁ understand from the local education authority that it was not represented as leading to the Council's degree. In February, 1966, application was made to the C.N.A.A. for recognition of the course for a degree; but the Council withheld approval. The college authorities are doing all they can to help students who now wish to transfer to another course.

Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again? Obviously, the people were misinformed about this and their careers have been irretrievably prejudiced by what has happened. If this is something which has happened once for all and will not happen again because the Council was not set up at the time, cannot the Minister make a special dispensation for the people concerned in this case?

Frankly, I do not think that special action could be taken in a case like this. The course was started in September, 1964, and was announced as one leading to the college diploma, a most valuable qualification. Application was then made to the Council for National Academic Awards, but for various reasons the Council felt unable to approve the course for such a qualification. I do not know how far I could look further into the matter, but I would be ready to discuss it in greater detail with the hon. Member if he would like to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when, in view of the unsatisfactory and overcrowded conditions at Sutton County Primary School, he will consider approving the provision of a new school.

My right hon. Friend is still considering whether a new school in Sutton can be approved for the 1968–69 building programme.

How long will it take to consider this matter? Is the Minister of State aware that conditions at the school are appalling? A large development is going on in the village. Why cannot we have an answer which would give satisfaction to my constituents?

The hon. Member will be well aware that there are many Mem- bers of Parliament who feel strongly about building replacements of schools in their areas. He will also be aware that the arrangements for school building programmes are necessarily taken together. Priorities from all the local education authorities involved must be considered and it would be quite improper to take one local authority out of the whole scheme and give an advance decision on one individual case.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what definition of immigrant he proposes that education authorities should use in implementing his circular in relation to the 30 per cent. quota system to be applied to immigrant children in schools.

I would expect local education authorities to be guided by the children's special educational difficulties arising out of their different cultural and social backgrounds and their inadequate knowledge of English.

What precautions are taken to see that children born here of immigrant parents are not included in this quota? Bearing in mind that many of us are critical about this method of dealing with what is essentially a short-term problem, does my hon. Friend feel that sufficient effort has been put into trying to attract into areas which have this difficulty special teachers with qualifications to deal with the problem?

A tremendous amount of research and effort is being put in by all the local education authorities affected. As I think the House knows, I am at present in course of visiting and discussing with both the professionals and the local education authorities the problems arising.

The latest figure is 131,043 in January, 1966, excluding those in schools with less than 10 immigrant pupils. In estimating the numbers of school places required in future years, we do not assess the needs of immigrant children separately but prospective immigration is one element in making general forward estimates of school population.

Is it not a fact that the continuing influx of immigrant children will provide an increasing and difficult problem which is bound to add to the cost of education? Is that not a subject which should be submitted, perhaps, to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which is conducting a study for the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I will certainly consider that suggestion.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the parents of immigrant children also pay rates and taxes?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will increase the funds allocated for textbooks for the academic departments of technical colleges.

The allocation of funds for this purpose is a matter for local education authorities as part of their general responsibility for providing further education.

Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of students are taking non-technical courses at these technical colleges and that in present circumstances these grants are quite inadequate? Will he see whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be a little more generous in this way?

That is a somewhat separate question. Expenditure on text- books, whether technical or otherwise, is taken into account in assessing the rate support grant to local authorities. I know of no evidence that any particular authority is unable to make adequate allocation from its funds in its own area for this purpose. We are, however, continually watching this, like every other aspect of the disposal of funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in the light of the recommendations of the Estimates Committee, he has now had an opportunity to consider the reduction or elimination of the £82 million subsidy for school meals, except in cases of genuine financial need.

I am still considering the recommendation of the Estimates Committee.

In considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the 1s. charge has been in existence for about nine years although during that period family incomes, benefits and also the cost of the meals have risen greatly? If the Minister could save even 6d. a meal this might produce £10 million a year, which could possibly be used to implement some of the recommendations of the Plowden Report.

I shall, of course, bear that in mind, together with other considerations. We have, however, to take into account on the other side that there is still strong evidence of perhaps unexpected remaining malnutrition and poverty, particularly among large families.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school meal is the only decent meal that many children receive each day and that any substantial increase in the charge for these meals would be regarded by many hon. Members on these benches as an attack upon the Welfare State and that it would meet bitter hostility on this side, whatever encouragement my right hon. Friend may get from the benches opposite?

I made it clear in reply to the first supplementary question that a great many considerations are involved in this matter, and I shall, I hope, bear all of them in mind. Having, however, been asked by the Estimates Committee to make a special review of this problem, I am bound to do so.

Is it not rather fantastic that the Government should have cut university building, and should be, as many people feel, dragging their feet on the Plowden recommendations, whilst subsidising school meals to the amount of £82 million equally for everybody? While accepting fully the need to safeguard the nutritional standards of large families and those who are least well off, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind the widespread feeling in the country that Government expenditure should be concentrated on those essential tasks which, if they are not performed by the Government, cannot be performed by anybody?

If the right hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as that, it is very curious that he did nothing about this matter for seven years from 1957 to 1964. What this discussion shows is that there are many conflicting considerations in this matter. It really is not a simple one. There are educational and social considerations of an extremely intricate and important kind. I have no intention of coming to any decision on this matter quickly. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about dragging our feet on Plowden, he will have read the Plowden Report —1,200 pages, two volumes. If he really thinks that it would make sense to come to snap decisions on the Committee's 197 recommendations, he is not being serious or responsible.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in considering this matter, he may find that savings of a considerable nature must be found in organisation and distribution of the meals service instead of increasing the charge to the parent?

We shall bear that in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the difficulties it will cause to girls wishing to study agriculture, horticulture and farm management, he will reconsider his decision to close Studley College; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend satisfied himself before deciding to discontinue grant to the college that suitable places can be provided at other agricultural establishments for girls who wish to follow the type of courses now offered by Studley.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the widespread sense of outrage at this decision is partly due to a fear that it will debase the whole status of women in agriculture, particularly since, of all the agricultural establishments offering diploma courses to men or women, Studley is the only one which has successfully trained women for degree courses? Instead of stubbornly sticking to his guns, would my hon. Friend at least have discussions with the college to see if a way out can be found?

There is opposition to any closure, but there is also support for the policy of concentrating scarce resources to the maximum educational advantage. As regards opportunities for women students in agriculture, there are 40 other agricultural education establishments which admit women and offer a wide choice of alternative places. We do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in placing the women of Studley in alternative courses.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I fully support the case put by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), and is he further aware that I shall be getting out a couple of guns to shoot him if he does not get on with it?

I am aware of the first part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question, but apprehensive of the second part.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I, too, fully support the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), in view of the fact that not only do I have a charming young lady in my constituency who attends this college, but that the Agriculture Bill gives grants to farmers to do this job and this college provides the type of education and secretaries to do this work?

I agree that the college has done extremely well in the past. This raises a question which one must tackle firmly, namely, the concentration of very scarce resources in the way of finance, highly qualified manpower and equipment.

The Minister gave me an almost exactly similar Answer last week on this issue. Is he aware that I have since been informed that, although there may be 40 other colleges, only two offer courses leading to the National Diploma in Dairying, and at those two colleges there are fewer girls than there are at Studley at the moment?

If there are fewer, there is obviously room for women from Studley—

No, places.

On the first point, my information is somewhat different, but I will make it available to my hon. Friend or to any other hon. Member who is interested.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that there are sufficient books to go round in schools; and what methods he proposes to use to achieve this.

It is for local education authorities to ensure that there are enough books in the schools and I believe that in general they take this responsibility very seriously.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in Leeds, at any rate, the education committee has not sufficient funds to enable some grammar schools to have the books which they require unless the Department is prepared to spend more money for the purchase of books? Would she consider a suggestion that parents should provide their children with the books which are so indispensable to our education system?

The hon. Gentleman may like to know that the expenditure on books in 1964–65 was over £10 million. There are more books in schools at present than ever before. Arrangements have been made to make loans to local education authorities, if required. But, fundamentally, this is a matter which rests with local education authorities. The Plowden Report made certain recommendations affecting books, and those recommendations, we feel sure, will be closely paid attention to by local education authorities.

Is the hon. Lady aware that it is extremely difficult for local education authorities to fulfil their responsibilities for books when they have to suffer from an imposed cut in their estimates upon which rate support grant is based?

I can only say that the indications that expenditure on books is steadily going up would not appear to bear that out.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now make a statement about the future of the College of Aeronautics, Cranfield.

The governors of the college have recently announced their decision to submit an application to the Privy Council for a charter to establish an institute of technology, at Cranfield, formed from the existing institutions there and with power to award its own degrees.

The governors may have done that, but does the Minister realise that in 1965, in answer to a Question on the subject, we were informed that the recommendations of the governing body had been received by the Government, and still there is no definitive statement of policy with regard to this important institution? Is there not a vital place for Cranfield, and is it not up to the Government to make up their minds and give the college some sense of purpose?

There is certainly a place for Cranfield and the work which it has done and will do. The governors have moved to make this application to the Privy Council. I could not properly comment on that pending the decision of the Council on the application for a charter.

As the Lord President of the Council is responsible for the work of the Privy Council, has the hon. Gentleman inquired of his colleague when a decision can be expected?

I understand that the governors will be submitting their application within the next few weeks. I should not think that a decision by the Council will be delayed. The first move must be the submission of the application for a charter by the Governors.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will take steps to grant official recognition of the certificate for primary teachers, issued by the Irish Department of Education.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the courses of training for primary teachers in the Republic of Ireland as suitably matching the courses of teachers training which are approved in England and Wales.

I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's Answer, but will she give sympathetic consideration if representations are made by local education authorities on behalf of such teachers who have already given satisfactory returns in respect of the teaching they are giving in school at present?

Yes, Sir. It is always open to a local education authority to make a special application to the Department for exceptional treatment on behalf of a certain teacher, and normally the Department would consider the experience and satisfactory services of a teacher over a period of teaching amounting to a number of years.

Can the hon. Lady assure us that the same negative attitude that she expressed in reply to an earlier Question will not apply to the Diploma in Education granted by Irish universities, of which there are many holders teaching in this country?

That matter will be considered by those responsible for working out the equation of one degree with another. I must make it clear that it is in no sense a special picking out of Ireland. For Irish training courses a similar length of time and a similar age of starting would normally be required to equate them with our own teaching staff.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to obtain an increase in expenditure on school books and equipment made by those local education authorities whose expenditure is well below the national average.

The Plowden Report made certain recommendations on this subject, and my right hon. Friend is now awaiting the comments of the local authority and teachers' associations.

Does the Minister recollect that the Plowden Committee suggested that it would cost between £500,000 and £1 million to bring the laggard local education authorities up to an acceptable standard? Does she think that this will happen unless there is the strongest lead from the centre?

As the hon. Member will be aware, the amount spent is within the discretion of local education authorities. The Plowden Report devoted itself to giving greater discretion to individual schools in the matter of expenditure on books. It is not appropriate to take the answer further until we have heard the views of the local education authorities on the Plowden recommendations.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what savings he expects to derive in expenditure in the coming financial year from his policy of refusing to sanction improvements in the provision of secondary education in cases which had not complied with his request to submit schemes of reorganisation on comprehensive lines.

In Circular 10/66 I said that I would not approve new secondary projects which would be incompatible with the introduction of a non-selective system of secondary education. This policy is not designed to secure savings in expenditure but to ensure that in general secondary school building should be in line with Government policy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's inability to quantify the savings which would result from this step mean that he accepts that this is just bluff?

On the contrary, for precisely the opposite reason the savings to which the right hon. Gentleman refers will turn out to be wholly academic and hypothetical, because virtually no authorities have submitted proposals to us which are incompatible with the comprehensive system.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the dissolution of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and the consequent reorganisation of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, he will now make a reduction in the number of Ministers.

No further changes are in immediate prospect, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the number of Ministers in the House of Commons has risen by 30 per cent. since he became Prime Minister? Has he consulted his famous league tables recently? Does he agree that we now have the largest and fastest-growing Government in the world—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the best"]—coupled with the most stagnant economy?

The number of Ministers was approved in legislation passed by this House. The right hon. and learned Member will have plenty of time to judge not merely the quantity but the quality, as the country itself did a year ago, because the number of Ministers has not risen since a year ago and the country took its judgment of the quality of the Government then.

Will the Prime Minister treat the suggestion of reducing the number of Ministers with reserve? Does not he realise that any such reduction could only add to the pool of his so-called supporters who would exercise their right to follow their conscience?

I shall certainly take the hon. Gentleman's advice very carefully into consideration. He will realise the difficulty that we have in the House as a whole, due to the fact that, conscience or no conscience, we cannot get any agreed policy even out of the Front Bench opposite.

asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to enable hon. Members to address this House in any one of the national languages native to the countries of Great Britain.

This would be a matter for the House as a whole rather than for me, Sir, and would not require legislation. But I would remind the hon. Member of the wise Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, gave when the hon. Member raised a similar point with you on 21st July last.—[Vol. 732, c. 879–85.]

Will the Prime Minister say clearly whether he regards this State as a national State or a multi-national State? If the latter, how can he reasonably justify denying representatives from constituent nations of these islands the right to address this House in one of the national languages? A yw'n iawn i'r heniaith hon gael ei hesgymuno o'r Ty hwn fel pe bai'n fratiaith ddiwerth?

Order. I was afraid that was coming.

I am not sure—

On a point of order. Is it your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that no one may address this House in any language but English, and, therefore, that the Welsh language must always be regarded in this House—although it is an ancient British tongue—as a foreign language?

In answer to the original supplementary question, the first sentence of it did not convey much more to me than the third. As for the second, it is not for me to express a view on the conduct of our Parliamentary business; it is a matter for the House. As the hon. Member will recognise, in whatever language the House agrees that he or any other hon. Member should address it, he will be sure to get the attention and respect of the House to the extent that the words he uses, in any language, convey deep common sense and a realistic policy.

The Commonwealth Secretary, when Leader of the House, said that he would consider sympathetically and possibly refer to a Select Committee the question of taking the Oath in another language. Will the Prime Minister say what has happened about that?

This is a separate question, because the Question referred to the right of hon. Members generally to address this House, not merely to take the Oath. All these matters, of course, are for the House. I would certainly consider it perfectly suitable for the Select Committee to consider the question of the Oath or any other question raised by the hon. Gentleman's Question.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that some of the English Members of the House would welcome the opportunity of using plain, unadorned English, particularly that form of old Anglo-Saxon used west of the Pennines and north of the Mersey?

The Leader of the House said that to change the Oath so that we could take it in another language would require a change of legislation, which is perfectly true, and undertook to take action about it. I am asking the Prime Minister whether the Leader of the House has taken any action.

I will look into the question of whether any action has been taken, but there is no reason why the Select Committee should not take this matter up as a matter of urgency, at once if it feels that that is necessary.

Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman please to resist proposals of this nature? Is he aware that we on these benches already find it difficult enough to understand the nonsensical speeches which come in a steady flow from the Government Front Bench? [Laughter.]

Order. This is a serious matter.

Yes, Sir, any intervention by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) always gets the very serious consideration which his weighty interventions command. However, just as it is not a matter for me to take action in this matter, as I said in answer to the original Question, equally it is not for me to resist proposals of this nature. This must be a matter for the House as a whole, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if there has been any change in the security arrangements at Chequers since he informed the House about those arrangements in his answers to Questions on 2nd December, 1964.

Yes, Sir, but it would be contrary to practice to give details.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recollect that he gave details in answer to questions raised by hon. Members on 2nd December? Further, is he not aware that, on two occasions in the last six months, there have been cases of breaking and entering into Chequers, the last of which came to notice only because the people concerned were caught? Would he not also agree that this evidence of the weakness of security in Chequers is giving considerable anxiety about his personal safety to his hon. Friends below the Gangway? Should he not do something about it?

I do not think that I should comment on the circumstances in which certain events became known, but as all matters relating to the break-in are at present sub judice—I should have thought that his own remark would come within that recognition—it would be inappropriate for me to comment on anything to do with the break-in to which he referred. It is true, as he says, that I gave an Answer on the first part of his Question on 2nd December, 1964, when Questions about special security arrangements were asked at the time of our defence conference at Chequers in November, 1964. I gave one detail, that the normal security protection is given by the Buckinghamshire police. That is not giving too much away, but it would be contrary to practice to say what the situation has been since then.

Was a D notice issued in respect of the loss of the Constable?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the last D notice issued was issued not by this Government but by the Government of which he was a member, in June, 1964.

Can my right hon. Friend explain why there was such a long time lag between the date of the last illegal entry into Chequers and the release of the news that an illegal entry had taken place?

When events of this kind occur, it must be a matter for the police to decide how to handle these questions. They were pursuing inquiries which led to certain action, on the consequences of which, being sub judice, I cannot comment.

asked the Prime Minister if he will co-ordinate the actions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Public Building and Works with regard to fixing a date for starting the building of the new British Embassy in Rome.

Those of my right hon. Friends concerned already work closely together and no special action by me is needed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very disappointing Reply, that the site of the Embassy in Rome has now stood there for nearly 20 years, that enormous care was taken to prepare a building which was exciting architecturally, on which Sir Basil Spence worked, and interesting to the Italian municipal authorities, and that something more positive is expected rather more quickly than what he has said?

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the work undertaken by Sir Basil Spence, who was commissioned to undertake the project several years ago—indeed, in November, 1960. I can take no responsibility for the greater part of the 20 years. With regard to action now, although it is too soon to forecast a date on which building work will begin, provision of £100,000 has been sought in the Estimates for 1967–68 for this project.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that all the preparations for the commencement of this work and its completion were ready in October, 1964 and would have been carried out, and that a major architectural work, of this kind, by a world-famous architect on one of the most historic sites in Europe ought to go ahead as quickly as possible?

Yes, Sir, I recognise that the necessary preparations, architect's drawings and the rest, were done by 1964—in other words, after 17½ of the 20 years mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friend. I also note that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite spend half their time saying that Government expenditure must be cut down and the other half pressing for an expansion in expenditure on every single item which comes to their notice.

asked the Prime Minister what discussions he held with Mr. Kosygin about extending the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty to include underground tests.

We agreed on the importance of extending the 1963 Treaty to cover tests in all environments. The Soviet Prime Minister was asked to reconsider the possibility of holding the tripartite technical talks on seismology to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred on 19th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 999–1001.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree or disagree that it is a little hypocritical to expect non-nuclear Powers to sign a self-denying ordinance such as the non-proliferation agreement while nuclear Powers—perhaps particularly his Government—keep open the underground testing option? Does he propose any further British underground tests?

I certainly do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We have been pressing all along for an extension of the limited test ban to underground tests. There is nothing hypocritical about that. The fact that we have not reached agreement on it raises other considerations. Nor do I believe that it is hypocritical to press for a non-proliferation agreement when we failed so far to get agreement on this. I would agree, however—this may be in the hon. Gentleman's mind—that a concomitant of asking for a non-proliferation agreement to be signed by non-nuclear Powers is that the nuclear Powers should make as rapid an advance as posible to nuclear disarmament.

Did my right hon. Friend have any discussions with Mr. Kosygin about the possibility of an Anglo-Soviet attempt to persuade General de Gaulle to sign the partial Test Ban Treaty, especially in view of the views of the Leader of the Opposition about nuclear sharing with France?

We did not discuss either the position of General de Gaulle or that of the Leader of the Opposition in these talks. The important difference here is, of course, the fact that the Soviet Government believe—I think they strongly believe—that modern seismological research enables outside observers, without on-the-spot inspection, to detect any underground explosion which has possible sinister meaning. We do not accept that that is yet the position, although there has been great progress year by year over the past few years. This is why we have impressed on them the need for talks between the seismological experts to see how narrow is the difference. My view is that it is a fairly narrow difference; around a particular seismic magnitude, but it would be helpful if we could get a meeting of the experts, away from the foreign affairs discussions on this.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, however, that the time factor here is of some importance? Having regard to the fact that plutonium is the inevitable by-product of all uranium reactors in operation and that, by the mid-1970s, uranium reactors will be reacting all over the world, does he not realise that the quantity of plutonium available to Powers on all sides will be very large in ten years? Does that not make the matter urgent?

Yes, Sir, I agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. It is urgent, and it is as serious as he said. This, of course, is why we are pressing on so strongly for a non-proliferation agreement to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear Powers. That, I think, is a separate question from this one, which related to underground tests.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that at the time of the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in Moscow in 1963 the then Conservative Prime Minister said that we must not only co-exist with the Russians but co-operate with them? Does my right hon. Friend agree with that and would he say how that squares with the fact that this week we are talking about having nuclear weapons—to be used, presumably, against the Russians in the 1970s and 1980s?

My right hon. Friend will, if he is interested in cooperation with the Russians, no doubt want to go back into the Library and study the very fine statement agreed upon between Mr. Kosygin and myself covering a very, very wide range of cooperation between our two countries—indeed, I think on a level not previously reached. The co-operation which is relevant here and which we ourselves are proposing—and about which the Russians have difficulty—is that tripartite talks on seismology should take place so that the scientists can first of all clear out of the way any arguments about outside detection and in that way narrow the gap as to what that argument is; and then, at that stage, the Foreign Ministers can take over. We would like to see that technological co-operation as a first step.

Does the Prime Minister recall that at the time of the partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty the West was asking the East to accept six to eight seismic events per annum to see whether they might be of nuclear origin? In view of the improvements which have taken place in seismic techniques since that time, have we made any offer to the Soviet Government of a reduction in the number of inspections which would be required, and would the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing a White Paper giving the details of the scientific advances which have been made in the interim?

There has been no recent discussion about the number of tests and we are really still in the same position as we were more than three years ago on this matter in that the Soviet Government say that no inspections are necessary, and that they will not contemplate them, although the West is saying that some means of on-the-spot inspection is needed. As long as that difference exists, it is no good arguing about numbers. I agree that there has been a great advance in detection techniques, though not enough, in our view, to justify our taking the risk of saying that this can all be detected from outside. Since the Soviet Government have disagreed with us about this, that is why we say that there is need for the seismologists to get together. I will look into the question of the need for a White Paper, although I am not sure that one would be appropriate at present. The argument on seismology is a rather narrow one.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while the non-proliferation treaty is important, our present attitude in assisting the Russians and Americans to control Europe is proving most unhelpful in our exploration to enter the Common Market?

No, Sir. I do not agree with at all with that and I would not agree with any phrase about our assisting the Russians and the United States to control Europe. The non-proliferation treaty is of great urgency. I have several times told the House that there are anxieties among some of our European partners—and these anxieties exist more widely—about the effect of the treaty on their civil technology, something which we believe is not a danger to them, and we have positive proposals for helping in nuclear matters, such as joining EURATOM on suitable terms.