It is some months since we had a debate on the Press, and on that occasion I welcomed the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Education and Science to the Front Bench. I said that he had had more than his share of political misfortune. I now congratulate him on holding what I regard as one of the most interesting and rewarding of all Government posts.

But the right hon. Gentleman has had two uneasy months since his appointment. I recall that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), in a debate on education, once referred to me as the educational Vicar of Bray. Thinking of the right hon. Gentleman, I can only reply that I would much rather be the Vicar of Bray than an accident-prone Bourbon.

This leads me to two topical issues with which I should like to deal, at not too great a length, before I come to the main part of my speech. The first is the British Museum decision—the decision not to go ahead with the building of the new British Museum Library in Bloomsbury. I see from The Times this morning that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to worsen relations still further between the Government and the trustees. This seems a funny morning to choose to do that.

I am in no way responsible for what is in The Times. The right hon. Gentlemen should not assume that their prophecies are right.

I am relieved to hear that. I felt that this was a morning in which the Government would be more concerned with trying to regain a few friends than in repelling them still further.

I believe that the decision about the British Museum Library is as wrong as the manner of its announcement has been outrageous. As for the manner of its announcement, in opening the debate I have nothing to add to Lord Radcliffe's devastating letter which appeared in The Times last Tuesday. Lord Radcliffe said,

"I have been accustomed to dealing with or for Government Departments for a good many years now, and it would not have occurred to me in the context of his case in which the trustees are responsible by Statute for the conduct of the Museum that their views would be set aside and a long-settled plan abandoned without even a discussion as to the reasons far the rejection and an honest attempt made to work out a feasible alternative."

So much of the handling of this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), whom I am sure we all welcome to the Front Bench, will have more to say about this later in the debate, Mr. Speaker, if he catches your eye. But I believe that this was also a wrong decision for two reasons. First of all, the Government have thrown away a unique opportunity of keeping the whole conspectus of our culture to one single site. There is a very strong argument for the specialist collections being able to maintain a physically close relationship with the department of printed books. I say this as one who has had some personal contact with senior members of the Museum in recent days. I think that this is true if only because of the language point. Very few of the specialist libraries can meet all their language needs when it comes to Iron Curtain languages or Oriental languages because there are not enough specialists to go round.

Secondly, as Lord Annan said in another place, the right hon. Gentleman's statement last week buries nearly 20 years of planning of the new library for the British Museum. It must lead to further delay at a time when pressure on space for displays of antiquities is getting ever more severe and when the expansion of university places both in this country and across the Atlantic inevitably means more readers pressing on space in the reading room. I would press at this point for an announcement by the right hon. Gentleman both on timing, and also on the site still being in Central London.

The other topical matter that I wish to raise arises out of a message which came to me through my secretary yesterday from the B.B.C. I received a message saying that the right hon. Gentleman would this morning be announcing the Government's plans for what were described as "the minor prep schools". It added that the right hon. Gentleman would be giving a Press conference on this subject at 12.30 and asked if I would appear in "The World at One", arriving at 12.45.

I hope that the House will take some exception to this. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is likely this morning to announce policy which may entail highly controversial legislation of which no inkling has been given in the Gracious Speech. I suggest to him that his right and natural course as a Minister speaking in an education debate would have been to announce his proposals first in the House, or at least to warn the Opposition that a statement would be made, before indicating his intention to the Press and broadcasting authorities outside. I also suggest that it is discourteous to this House if the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to make a controversial announcment in the course of the debate and then go straight off to a Press conference without hearing the reactions from hon. Members. I say in all sincerity that this is very untypical of the relations that I have had with the Department over the past two and a half years.

On the merits—I will not say more than this at this stage—we on this side will always be ready to support a more rigorous administration of Part III of the 1944 Act with more stringent criteria both for registration and for recognition as efficient of independent schools, but I think it would be crazy to seek to eliminate registered schools at a time when the maintained schools, especially the primaries, are as crowded as they are I very much fear that the right hon. Gentleman's announcement today will have no more to do with the essential educational priorities than reform of the Lords has to do with the solution of our basic economic difficulties.

Those were the two preliminary points that I wished to make. Now I turn to the main themes that we frequently discuss on education days, and I start with higher education. I had hoped that we could have debated this before the Recess, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I devote a few minutes now to the theme of higher education and further education. Perhaps I might just say that we welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady the Minister of State will be replying to the debate. We shall get used to the pleasure of seeing considerable numbers of right hon. and hon. Ladies winding up education debates in this Session.

There has been a dramatic increase in university student numbers in the 1960s, an increase from 108,000 in 1960 to just over 200,000 in the present academic year. We are already at the figure that the Robbins Report anticipated for 1971–72. Yet despite this very rapid increase, as I think the hon. Lady would agree, competition for university entry has actually increased. When the Robbins Committee reported in 1963, 63 per cent. of students with minimum qualifications were getting a place, whereas the figure is now down to 55 per cent. The number of applicants for university entry has risen this year by 10,000 compared with last year, although the number of people aged 18 in the population has dropped by 68,000. Surely these facts themselves entirely justify the strong criticism of Government cuts in the university building programme which we on this side have made during the past two years.

The Government have at last recognised, as we on this side have been urging ever since March, 1965, that the Robbins projections of university places required in the 1970s must be revised upwards. I first raised this point as long ago as March, 1965. But surely the Government's new target figure of 220,000 to 225,000 places by 1971–72, an increase of only 20,000 during the current quinquennium, must entail that competition for a university place will become still tougher, especially in the arts, and of course any intensification of competition for university places must have a severe effect on the school curriculum and an increased tendency towards premature specialisation. I hope that the hon. Lady will be frank about this and explain why the Government did not accept the estimate of the Vice-Chancellors Committee that another 45,000 places would be required by 1971.

My second question—it is an important one—concerns capital grants in the quinquennium. We on this side make no criticism of the Government's recent announcement on recurrent grants, which was fully as generous as the universities could reasonably have expected. In passing, I regret that 90 per cent. of the current requirements of universities has to come through the University Grants Committee. I hope that the universities will be able to develop some alternative sources of finance.

In connection with the new capital grants I am sure that we shall hear this morning from the right hon. Gentleman about the controversies of 1962 on university finance. I say at once that I concede to him all the debating points that he likes to make on that subject—if they are made. The point that I wish to emphasise is that the capital grants that we as a Government were approving in the pre-Robbins period were higher than the capital grants authorised by the present Government for next year, 1968–69. I believe that the normal annual figure for the university building programme must be not £25 million but £30 million a year. In saying that, I am thinking especially of the requirements due to obsolescence and also the needs of the civic universities.

I have mentioned this point before. I recognise that the new universities and the colleges of advanced technology have to be built up. Bearing in mind also the provision that we have to make for technology, there is in consequence a real danger of the civic universities getting less than their share, and becoming seriously under-capitalised. I hope that the Minister will agree that these make an enormous contribution to university life at the moment, and that we ought to be specially concerned about their requirements. After all, we need not only to reach, as we have done, and to surpass the Robbins targets but also to sustain the rising numbers without the sacrifice of essential standards.

There are two more questions that I would ask the Government. One is a small point concerning equipment. We welcome the recent announcement about the supplementary grant for the current year and the four-year programme starting next August. But what about the grant to cover the period from April to August next year? I feel that this was omitted from the announcement.

My other point concerns post-graduate awards. Anxiety is felt by many students, and many university teachers, especially over the numbers of awards offered by the Social Science Research Council. I believe that these things have to be fair taking one year with another. Many people are becoming genuinely inspired with a greater enthusiasm for learning during their first degree course. I would therefore ask what proportion of students with first class degrees or with upper seconds have received post-graduate awards for the present academic year as compared with the previous year? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that local education authorities have the legal power under the 1962 Act, at their discretion, to supplement the number of these awards. I am here concerned not with the practice of the Department, but with what the law says. Surely we have learned by now that in education we live within the framework of the law as well as Departmental practice. I recognise that there is a financial problem in the growth of higher education but I cannot believe that the right way to cope with this is to make university entry still more competitive, or to cut capital grants, or to discriminate against overseas students in the way that the Government have done. That leads me to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has anything to say this morning about a continuing Government study of the admittedly controversial issue—which I shall not shirk—of grants and loans.

I can see one overwhelming objection to replacing grants by loans for first degree students. We do not want to deter children from the families of manual workers from going to university. I think that it was Lord Robbins who once said in another place that the present proportion of young people entering higher education from higher professional families was 45 per cent., whereas the percentage from skilled working class families was only 4 per cent. I do not believe that the figures have altered much, and we should always remember them, but I think that the Government and the Opposition should keep an open mind over the possibility of a loan element in the financing of postgraduate education. I say this primarily because I believe that we ought to want to see a big expansion of post-graduate education during the 'seventies, and I do not want it to be held up just for reasons of finance.

One other question. What are the Government doing to try to strengthen university links between this country and universities on the Continent of Europe? It always bothers me that, so far as our universities are international bodies, the links across the Atlantic are so much stronger than the links across the Channel. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have never taken an extreme view of the European question. I have always recognised that there are arguments both ways, but if we are seriously seeking membership of the Community, surely we must take more seriously every means of strengthening links across the Channel, and I would like to see the Government considering ways in which this can be done. So much for the universities.

I should like, now, to say a few words about other aspects of higher education. I should be interested to hear news of progress on the polytechnics. As the House knows from my earlier speeches, I do not want to see all higher education in the university sector, but I have always been conscious at the same time of the importance of adequate senior posts for polytechnics, and adequate facilities for research.

I am concerned about some of the art colleges. Is it really the right answer for the Hornsey College of Art, an institution of international repute, to be joined as a polytechnic with Hendon and Enfield Colleges of Technology? I am also puzzled at the status of the Royal College of Art, a ward of the Department—a university institution not within the purview of the U.G.C. I hope that we can be told something of the Government's policy for art colleges.

I should also be grateful for news of progress over the implementation of the Industrial Training Act, which I believe is one of the most important Measures of the last few years. I greatly welcome the intimation that the Government are proposing to establish statutory Government bodies for polytechnics and colleges of education. This is something for which we have been pressing for some time.

On the question of teacher training, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has given thought to the possibility of an inquiry as recommended by Plowden. I agree that this is perhaps not a suitable job for the National Advisory Council, but it ought to be done, because the future of the colleges, and indeed their whole relationship with the universities, is one of the biggest decisions which we shall have to take in education during the next ten years. How are we to balance the need for rising academic standards, and real academic opportunities for abler entrants, with the vocational element in courses arising out of the needs of children? This is a very difficult matter, and I would here go for a small three-man inquiry.

I come, lastly, to adult education. We tend always to overlook this aspect of the service. I hope that I made a modest contribution by including the long-term residential adult colleges in a building programme. For instance, I am glad that Ruskin College has been enlarged and is in a much better state than it was five years ago. What are the Government's plans? Education does not end with formal schooling, and adults may always develop an interest in a subject which did not appeal to them as children or as adolescents.

So much for higher education, and for the rest of my speech I should like to deal with primary and secondary education. Primary education takes one straight to the Plowden Report, and to the priority areas. We naturally warmly welcome the extra £16 million which the Government have allocated for the priority areas, but I think that we would have been more impressed if they had not at the same time reduced the allocations for the improvement of existing primary schools in the normal school-building programme. It is worth remembering that total allocations for school improvements for 1968–69 and 1969–70 is less than half the amount for the two previous years, and less in real terms than the amount I authorised in the spring of 1964 for the 1965–66 building programme. Wherever one goes in the country one finds this concern over the need for more resources to be allocated to the improvement of primary schools.

I would not press the Government this morning to accept all the Plowden recommendations. I think that many figures in Plowden are unrealistic in terms of what one could reasonably expect, but the Government could introduce greater flexibility between major and minor building projects, and they could restore freedom to local authorities in respect of mini-minor works, something which we have advocated ever since 1965. There is a feeling in Britain today, and for reasons which the House will understand I say "in Britain" advisedly, that there is too much centralised control by Whitehall. No other country in the Western world has our present degree of tight control of minor capital projects by the central Government.

On the question of the priority areas, I believe that the Plowden concept is very important, but surely this affects a number of Departments. This is not something which is confined to education. It concerns the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Home Office, and indeed the Ministry of Public Building and Works, as well as education, and I hope that we can be told what the Government are doing to co-ordinate efforts over priority areas. I am thinking of housing and of the problems due to immigrant concentration. This is something which should be closely co-ordinated by the Government.

There is one topic to which I propose to refer briefly before I come to secondary education, namely, special schools. I think that, rather like adult education, this is a subject which we all too often neglect in the House, and I wonder whether we do not have here the next remit for the Advisory Council. Might it not be a good idea to set up a committee to study all aspects of special educational needs, including those of children now excluded from the school system? I think that we ought to consider their needs very closely.

I come, lastly, to secondary education. There is one subject on which I should like to ask a question, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby), if he has an opportunity to take part in the debate, will pursue this matter. I should like a progress report on preparations by the Government for the raising of the school-leaving age. Both Front Benches are fully committed to this, but time is getting short, and it is not just a matter of building and of teachers, but of curriculum, of using the extra period to the best advantage.

I now come, inexorably, to the Enfield affair. On this I want to make three comments. First, the right hon. Gentleman was made to look extremely foolish over it. No Minister should lay himself open to the charge, in the courts, of acting in a manner

"thoroughly unreasonable in the circumstances."

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's legal advisers—indeed advisers in all Departments—will remember that it is one thing to score verbal points at a non-attributable Press conference and quite another to get the better of a High Court judge. It is valuable to have been reminded of the fact that resolutions passed by this House do not have the force of law.

But what was the point of the right hon. Gentleman's action? Does he think, in retrospect, that it was worth engaging in this humiliating ding-dong battle with the courts, merely so that the Enfield authority should not have to look at the record cards of about 24 boys? It seemed such a fantastic affair for a relatively small effect.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman and the Enfield authority must now avoid the ultimate nonsense of reshuffling these unfortunate boys, in whose interests the education service is carried on, for the remaining two terms of the current academic year. I cannot think of anything which could do more discredit to comprehensive education than, on grounds of dogma, to move from Chase School to Enfield Grammar School next January boys who would in any case be leaving in the summer.

Thirdly, and most important, let us remember that it is not only the Enfield Parents Emergency Committee which has criticised the Enfield scheme on educational grounds. I would give the House two quotations. The first is from the Economist. Nobody can say that that newspaper is prejudiced against comprehensive education. In fact—I do not want to quote selectively—in the same article there is a paragraph which begins:

"On balance, the advantages of comprehensive secondary education distinctly outweigh the disadvantages."

But in an earlier paragraph it says:

"The more that has emerged about the Enfield scheme, the worse it looks. Perhaps the local officials did their best with the premises, and in the time, available. One cannot be sure. But that is not the point. There are parts of this scheme which are difficult, and even impossible, to defend educationally."

Exactly the same point, perhaps even more clearly, was made by Mrs. Julie Rahmer, writing in the New Statesman on behalf of the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education. I probably address as many meetings of the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education as most hon. Members. This body is certainly not prejudiced against the general trend towards comprehensive education and therefore one can fairly expect an impartial view. Mrs. Rahmer says:

"We have criticised the Enfield scheme because, based as it is on existing schools with widely varying educational facilities, we felt that certain groupings could not initially provide a genuinely comprehensive curriculum. Moreover, we were particularly concerned about the neighbourhood schools in the poorer areas. In the beginning, at any rate, the schools have become 'comprehensive' mainly by virtue of their non-selective intake, and we would have liked the authorities to have paid more attention to the positive provision of comprehensive schooling…".

Those words exactly express the anxieties which we on this side of the House feel about the Government's policy. Mrs. Rahmer makes clearly the neighbourhood point and, even more important, the point that we do not achieve a genuinely comprehensive curriculum simply by calling a group of buildings a "comprehensive school."

It is a demonstrable fact that the 100 per cent. comprehensivists tend to live in areas where there is a wide range of schools offering pre-university courses. A parent living in South-East London has a genuine option between a pre-university course—if he has a bright child—at, say, Forest Hill Comprehensive School, or competing for a place at Dulwich College. In those circumstances, I would say to any parent who prefers a place at a comprehensive school, "It is your choice; good luck to you".

But would the 100 per cent comprehensivists be quite so keen if the only option in their area was a local comprehensive with an undeveloped sixth-form? As the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, since the local elections last spring I have not stumped the country urging resistance to reorganisation. I welcome the compromise reached in the case of Surrey, which seems entirely sensible. Similarly. I believe that Christopher Chataway's London plan is sound and realistic. But the Enfield scheme, or at any rate a part of it, is thoroughly bad on educational grounds.

In answer to the point raised earlier this week by the First Secretary, I said at the Brighton conference, and I repeat now, that I think that

"the days have long gone by for this country when one could say that so long as the top 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. were well catered for, the rest did not matter by comparison."

We accept the trend of educational opinion against selection into different kinds of school at the age of eleven, but there has to be selection or ability grouping at some stage, and we want to see the survival of the scholarly tradition as well. That is why we attach such importance to the direct grant schools.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will always bear in mind the fact that one can plan some things—I have never been somebody to whom the word "planning" is anathema—but that one can never plan traditions of excellence. I think of T. S. Eliot's words in, I think, the last of his "Four Quartets":

"What you thought you came for

Is only a shell, a husk of meaning…

The purpose is beyond the end you figured

And is altered in fulfilment."

Those words are true. We must have regard to the scholarly tradition in education as well as our right determination in all parts of the House to widen opportunities and to see that no child is excluded too soon from the possibility of a sixth-form course.

My last point is that my hon. Friends and I realise only too clearly how much the right hon. Gentleman's task is made harder by the lack of growth in the economy. Educational advance is essential to economic efficiency and that is why, ever since the time of Lord Eccles —whom I believe to have been one of the most creative and important Education Ministers of the century—we have rightly devoted, year by year, a rising share of our resources to this service. But failure to secure growth sets a limit on the resources that we can spare for the improvement of this service.

Let the right hon. Gentleman concentrate on essential priorities. Let him seek to widen opportunities without sacrificing excellence. But let him give up his practice of creating quite unnecessary trouble for himself. There was an epitaph pronounced on the right hon. Gentleman in The Times today, in which he was referred to as

"The best and nicest Minister who ever failed to master a department."

Many of us can vouch for the truth of the first half of that epitaph. The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman does so much to lend credence to the second half as well.

I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), for his kind if ambiguous opening words and his unambiguous closing words. I hope that no one can call me a Bourbon whatever adjective one attaches to it. The main burden of the right hon. Gentleman's attack was on the opposite line from the so nice phrase which he thought up.

As for my Press conference, I am not holding it to push any point. There may be questions that correspondents, especially educational correspondents, would like to ask me. This is a procedure with which the right hon. Gentleman is entirely familiar. He frequently pursued it when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It is a common thing to do, and I am surprised that he made such heavy weather of it. He made a lot of assumptions about my speech.

As I understood it, what my right hon. Friend said was that this Press conference will take place at 12.30 today, during this debate. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has been asked to take part in a programme at 1 o'clock. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is really in accordance with the spirit of the undertaking given to the House by the broadcasting and other authorities when the 14-day rule was abrogated?

I do not know whether the right hon. Baronet is right to go on the B.B.C. or not. I am not going to anticipate what is said in the debate, but, if questions are asked of me about my speech, or anything needs elucidating, it seems perfectly proper to do it for the specialist Press.

The right hon. Baronet made many assumptions about my speech. I do not know where he got all his information from, but I know that he will now listen to my actual instead of my imaginary speech. I come to the office of Secretary of State for Education and Science at a time when there is an exciting ferment of innovation, experiment and progress in our schools, and I am glad that this office has fallen to me at such a time.

I have been deeply impressed by the stimulating work that is going on in the field of curricular reform. One example is the curricular preparation for holding the interest and furthering the education of the many new young adults who will be in our schools as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age. The work of the Schools Council in this respect has been of a very high order.

This is one part of the preparation which we are making—the right hon. Gentleman asked about this—for the raising of the school-leaving age, and the curricular preparation is as important as the physical preparation of increasing the places in the schools. We are spending £100 million on the second and, although I cannot promise that, on the day, there will be no troubles anywhere —that is almost impossible; a place or school may be in some difficulties—I am satisfied, after a very close look at this, that the preparations are going ahead very well and that we will be able to master the problems of raising the school-leaving age.

Another example of curricular reform—there are many others—is the spread of new science teaching in our primary schools. One of the most significant developments is the increase of in-service training for teachers, with more and more organisation and elaborate arrangements. This makes possible not only an active interchange of ideas and experience between teachers, but a much more rapid spread through our schools of new ideas that are shown by experiment to be effective. I will do my utmost to support and forward and promote all these developments.

As Secretary of State, I must, of course, continually give a great deal of thought and attention to what I might call the quantitative problems of education—how to allocate the sums available, the number of schools that can be built and the distribution of schools, the supply of teachers, university places and those in institutions of further education. But what most deeply interests me—and the right hon. Gentleman, as he made clear —is the quality of education throughout our system.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we must preserve the scholarly standards which we have inherited and, of course, we will not throw them away or weaken them. I particularly welcome the new tendency in our schools to give attention to the unique problems and particular aptitudes of each child. This is a very important development from the primary school upwards.

I am much concerned with what seems the over-early and excessive specialisation in our sixth forms. This has gone too far in this country, I think. Although I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about preserving the quality of scholarship, that can be done without too early and great specialisation. Correcting this will involve the collaboration of a great many independent sections of our education and a large part of our educational structure. It may, in fact, affect thought about the education of children from 12 years old up to and even beyond the universities. I intend to do all that I can to help forward the move to less early specialisation.

I am completely convinced, in this connection, of the ill-effects of selection for secondary education. Our intention to make further progress in the development of comprehensive education was mentioned in the Gracious Speech and I should like to inform the House of the progress which we are making. We have now scored our century, I am glad to say. The number of authorities with schemes wholly or partly implemented or approved has now reached 100—out of a total of 162 authorities. In addition, my Department is at present considering major schemes from 22 authorities and I will, of course, be announcing decisions on these over the next few months.

In 1966–67, the number of comprehensive schools in England and Wales grew from 342 to 509, a 48 per cent. increase. The number of pupils in them grew from 287,444 to 406,686, a 42 per cent. increase. This last represents 14·4 per cent. of all secondary pupils. Moreover, beginning with the part of the 1967–68 programme approved by my predecessor, all secondary school building must now be designed to fit in with comprehensive reorganization—

Do those figures relate only to comprehensive schools in the sense of all-through comprehensives, or do they include all non-selective schools, including sixth form colleges and senior high schools as well?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a variety of comprehensive schools—the middle school, and so on—and it includes all those approved and acceptable schemes, according to that circular.

I was saying that all new secondary school building must now fit in with comprehensive reorganisation, and the programmes for the three years 1967–70, already announced, will include secondary projects to a total value of over £120 million, which will, of course, contribute directly to comprehensive reorganisation. As I said, we are also allocating £100 million for building in connection with the raising of the school leaving age and this will, very often, indirectly help towards the comprehensive reorganisation.

Some of the politics which have entered into this question are mainly due to the sharp internal division on this issue in the party opposite. If there were no such division, there would not be anything like as much politics in this matter: in part, it is due to policies of local Conservative parties adopted to gain party advantage. A few of these are apparently determined to carry out their reactionary policies, but I am glad to say that they form only a very small minority.

The full picture shows that many Conservative parents, whatever the Tory backwoodsmen may say, are thinking of the interests of their children and are as much opposed to selection as Labour or Liberal parents or those with no political attachment.

The move towards comprehensive reorganisation is a powerful and general current. Twenty-two authorities where Labour was not in control before the elections of last May, and is not in con- trol now, have produced perfectly satisfactory plans, which we have approved—these 22 are Conservative controlled. Of the 43 authorities where Labour lost overall control last May, 22 have fully accepted the plans of their Labour predecessors.

A further six of these authorities which changed hands last May considered the possibility of making changes, but have now decided not to do so or to make only marginal and acceptable adjustments. Only six of these 43 are considering making any substantial changes in the plans put forward by their predecessors, and I have not yet had formal proposals from any of them.

Those authorities which considered changes after control changed, but now have decided or seem likely to decide not to change their predecessor's plans form an interesting category. Much local controversy was aroused, for instance, in Darlington and Newcastle about proposals to modify the previously approved Labour council plans and subsequent events in both areas have shown how strongly informed opinion, both of parents and of teachers, is working against selection at 11-plus and in favour of a genuinely comprehensive solution.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he called the Chataway plan and, of course, among the authorities which have withdrawn plans submitted by the previous authority is the very large and important Inner London Education Authority. I cannot speak on this subject as openly and as frankly as it was quite proper for the right hon. Gentleman to do, because the plans have not formally reached me from the I.L.E.A. They will not, I understand, reach me until the end of this year at the earliest, and I therefore cannot comment on them.

But, judging from the Press Reports, if I assume that those are accurate, there are parts of the proposals which I could readily accept and there are also certain aspects of the proposals, as described in the Press reports, which I would clearly find unacceptable, for instance, the indefinite retention of a substantial number of grammar schools and the suggestion that possibly one or more new grammar schools might be established.

The argument about comprehensive education has been clouded and obscured by events in Enfield. Let me try to put the facts into perspective. Enfield local education authority submitted its first plan for comprehensive reorganisation on 1st June, 1966. There was not a great rush or hurry about it. After considerable discussion and some amendment of the plan in the course of the discussion, it was approved in principle on 26th January, 1967.

In accordance with what had up to then been assumed to be the law, my Department advised the local education authority that the issue of notices under Section 13 of the 1944 Act was not necessary in regard to eight schools to be re-organised on a two-tier basis. It was in regard to these eight schools that the Court of Appeal granted an injunction on the ground that notices should have been issued.

It is now general knowledge that the Court of Appeal rejected an interpretation of Section 13 of the 1944 Act which everyone in the education service, including all my predecessors, most of whom happened to be Conservative Ministers, had followed since 1945. It had been universally assumed to be the law. This has inevitably led to great confusion among local education authorities, governors and managers. It has thrown into doubt the legal validity of a very large number of schools which have been established.

It is, therefore, the Government's intention to introduce as soon as possible in this Session amending legislation to clarify the position on this and certain cognate matters. Let me repeat that only eight schools in Enfield were affected by all this litigation. Comprehensive reorganisation involving 20 schools—this has always been overlooked—was unaffected and has proceeded in a normal way. Later there was a further action against the local education authority in regard to the unselective admissions of pupils to the Enfield Grammar School.

May I ask about the scope of the proposed legislation, which we shall naturally want to consider very carefully? Will it refer only to what I might describe as the first half of the Enfield judgment or will it refer to the question of school building standards, too?

I am not absolutely sure. I am considering the position. The legislation will be produced and there will be plenty of time to discuss it. We shall give notice of it. It will go a little wider. That is why I referred to cognate subjects. But it will not be rushed. There will be time to discuss and consider it.

As I have said, later there was a further action against the local education authority in regard to the unselective admissions of pupils to the Enfield Grammar School. Mr. Justice Donaldson granted an injunction to prevent this on the ground that under its articles this school must take a selected entry. There- upon, I was requested by the local education authority and the governors of the school to amend the articles as soon as possible. This was not something which entered my head out of the blue. I was asked by the local education authority and the governors to amend the articles, and that, naturally, carried great weight with me.

I therefore announced that I proposed to amend the articles, judging that in the circumstances three-and-a-half days was a reasonable period for representations to be made to me. But the Court held that there should be a period of not less than four weeks. I then allowed four-and-a-half weeks for any representations to be made, and on 25th October I announced my considered decision that the Articles should be changed.

The effect of the amendment is not, as has been widely represented, to create a three-form entry comprehensive school but to remove the obligation imposed in the articles to follow certain admission procedures which make sense only if the school is selective. Under the amended articles, the school could now be either selective or non-selective. It was previously compelled by the articles to be selective.

I cannot at this stage say any more about the proposals for reorganising eight secondary schools in Enfield, including Enfield Grammar School, because I must consider any objections which may be made to the proposals. The time for objections does not expire until 15th November. After considering them, I will announce my decision one way or the other.

But I would like to make one point. The body that calls itself The Enfield Parents' Joint Emergency Committee has been widely represented as speaking for all the parents of Enfield. This body has often been described simply as "the Enfield parents". In fact, this is far from the truth. Another organisation, called the Enfield Parents' Association, was formed on 16th October. The Chairman of this body, Mr. Harold Smith, has written to me the following letter, which may be of interest:

"We are a newly-formed but rapidly growing all-party association of parents who support the Enfield Council's comprehensive plan. Though only formally established one week ago, the support we are receiving from parents and associations has surprised us. There has clearly been a widespread reaction in Enfield to the intemperate statements and actions of the Enfield Parents' Joint Emergency Committee, and throughout the Borough a surge of support for the Enfield Council is evident.

My co-founder is a Conservative and I am a Labour supporter and we are finding that enthusiasm for the comprehensive schools is rapidly growing amongst parents of all shades of political opinion.

"My Association is determined to stop the campaign of harassment which is poisoning the atmosphere in Enfield."—

helped by some other people.—

"However, we still hope that some means can be found for persuading Mr. Harris and his supporters to drop their campaign."

Mr. Smith concludes:

"May I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the firm and resolute action you have taken in this trying situation. We look forward to a new spirit being allowed to develop with regard to secondary education in Enfield."

"Amen" say I to that.

Thus the attempt to paint the Enfield parents as united against comprehensive education is no more than a politically inspired manœuvre—in which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has played a leading part. He has lined himself up with those Conservatives who want to preserve selection at all costs.

I turn now to a number of issues, some of which are mentioned in the Gracious Speech. I shall also take up a number of points made by the right hon. Member for Handsworth and others will be dealt with by the Minister of State in winding up the debate. She will deal particularly with the points about higher education, because that is her special responsibility in the Department.

First, I wish to announce a decision which I have made about independent schools. Following the trial and conviction on charges of cruelty and assault of the joint principal of an independent school registered under Part III of the Education Act, 1944, my predecessor announced on 10th May that he had asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to conduct a Departmental inquiry. The inquiry was to cover the circumstances of the particular case and, more generally, the adequacy of existing statutory provision relating to proper standards of education and welfare in independent schools.

My hon. Friend has completed her report—but I cannot yet publish it, because the particular matters which gave rise to it, are now the subject of appeal and are, therefore, sub judice.

On the general point, I have been giving much thought to independent schools. I would dearly like to take measures to ensure that all these schools reach a proper standard of efficiency within a relatively short time, but to achieve this would involve a very substantial enlargement of the Inspectorate —larger than we can afford or perhaps could recruit.

I have, therefore, decided to concentrate first on the boarding schools. Here, the need for high standards is greatest, both because the children's education and welfare depend during term time entirely on the school and because their parents are often far away, sometimes out of the country.

There are 314 registered boarding schools not now recognised as efficient. I intend to apply the standards required for recognition to every one of these over the next five years. I expect many of them to be capable of the necessary improvements, but I shall take action under the Act against those which fail to meet the requirements, which cover not only the premises and the quality of the education provided but also the arrangements for the general welfare of the pupils.

This special effort on boarding schools, which I am confident will receive general public support, will not reduce the present level of work on day schools, and when the new standard has been secured for boarding schools I hope that we can have a further drive to raise minimum standards in day schools.

The right hon. Member for Hands-worth referred to my statement last week on the British Museum Library, about which Lord Radcliffe, the chairman of the trustees, had written a long letter to The Times. I am sorry that Lord Radcliffe has been ill and I wish him a rapid recovery. Although there is some disagreement between myself and the trustees on this question, I would like to make clear my high regard for their devotion to the interests of the Museum and its staff. I pay particular tribute to the achievement, as Director, of Sir Frank Francis, whose repute extends far beyond this country.

It has been said that the trustees were not consulted by the Government. I do not want to argue about the meaning of words. Instead, I will describe what happened and leave the House to draw its own conclusions.

At a meeting with Lord Radcliffe on 14th June my predecessor explained that the Camden objections to the proposal to build the new British Museum Library on the Bloomsbury site were being taken very seriously by the Government. In the course of the discussion, Lord Radcliffe made clear his strong view that the new library should be built there. He stressed, as my predecessor had, the need for an early decision. This was common ground between them. It was left that Lord Radcliffe would send in a statement setting out the views of the trustees.

After the meeting, Lord Radcliffe wrote on 18th June to ask whether the timetable which the Government had in mind—and which he knew was very short—would allow the trustees to delay the submission of their statement until after a meeting they were to hold in July. My predecessor agreed to this and the statement duly arrived on 25th July.

It was now the duty of the Government to balance the arguments produced by Camden against those produced by the British Museum and to reach the early decision which all agreed to be necessary after the long years of delay and vacillation.

I much regret that Lord Radcliffe had the impression that there was to be a further waiting period, devoted to further discussion. This was never the intention of the Government. Indeed, Lord Radcliffe's letter of 18th June acknowledged that the Government wanted to act quickly and, in his reply, my predecessor spoke of the pressing need to reach an early decision. Surely this was clear enough.

We had the document, arguing the Museum's case—very cogently and powerfully—prepared over six weeks. We thought that the case could not have been better spelled out; indeed, so far no fresh argument has been added to the points made by Lord Radcliffe on behalf of the trustees. As I have said, everyone agreed that what was now wanted was a decision, and we took it.

In the middle of last month I set about arranging a meeting with the trustees to tell them of our decision. Because of his illness, it was clear that Lord Radcliffe would not be able to come. I got in touch with the Director of the Museum to ask him which trustees could come in his place. In the event, I saw four trustees of the Museum, together with the Director, on the day before a statement of the Government's decision was made in both Houses.

I have been charged—and I was charged again today—with reversing a firm decision to go ahead with the Bloomsbury scheme. This is simply not true. There was no clear decision by the previous Government, nor any firmness of action or clarity of purpose. On the contrary, it was a sorry tale of indecision.

rose—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make my case; and then, if he wishes, he may interrupt. I wish to explain why this has been a long and sorry tale. If he does not agree with that, when I have explained why I think it was, let him say so then.

In 1951, the Bloomsbury site was designated for the building of the new library. After objections—of which there were many, and massive ones—and a public inquiry, the then Government approved the plan in 1955. They did so without any examination of what the overall structure of library provision should be to meet the country's present-day needs. We were to go ahead in the future exactly as in the past. But we were not to go ahead quickly.

For seven years, from 1955, nothing happened, except some voluntary purchases of bits of the site. At last, in 1962, seven years later, architects were appointed; and in 1964, a month before leaving office, they came to a decision to go ahead with the scheme—but with great qualifications.

First, it was to be subject to

"…consultation with the many interested authorities, including the housing and planning authorities".

It was also subject to the money being able to be found. Finally, there was no more than a "hope" that building would begin in the early 1970's, and even then it was to be phased over about 10 years.

This was a non-decision. It was taken by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) who, in the House a day or two ago, was urging upon us the need for Government efficiency and speed of action. If we followed his practice, rather than his precept, we should still be dilly-dallying about on this issue. Indeed, in this whole, long, drawn-out, indecisive and hesitant affair, the only actual decision, if I may modestly say so, is the one I announced last week—and it is the right decision.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the announcement approved by the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1955 was a firm decision? Does he accept that, in the 1951 London Development Plan, this was to be spread over a period of 20 years, to allow time for arrangements to be made with the local authorities?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to what I was saying, but, instead, was preparing his question. Of course, the decision made in 1955 was not firm—otherwise, the Government would not have had to take in 1964, nine years later, what has been claimed to be a firm decision. After a great deal of thought—and I assure the House, anxious thought—on our part, we announced our decision, and I am sure it was right.

The trustees say that the present combination of museum and library is unique. That is true. But it does not follow that this is uniquely right. No rational argument I have heard has been advanced in favour of it. Other great countries have found a different solution preferable. workable and efficient.

I find it incredible that hon. Gentlemen opposite so lightly and callously dismiss the immediate destruction of 900 homes in a very overcrowded area and the obliteration of one of the most dignified and historically significant areas of London.

The Government certainly do not treat questions such as these lightly and we gave great weight to both of them, but neither was decisive. One of our duties is, where proper and possible, to preserve beautiful and historic buildings when private developers want to destroy them. If we were ourselves to be as cavalier in this matter as hon. Gentlemen opposite urge us to be, our hand would be greatly weakened when dealing with private developers.

The Times described my decision to set up an independent committee to examine the best structure for our national libraries as a piece of "Whitehall flannel". This shows that it failed to inform itself of the very real problems facing us.

Owing to history, our present national libraries are in a confused state. There is is waste, overlap and misuse of scarce manpower. The Science Museum Library and the National Reference Library of Science and Invention, which is part of the British Museum Library, are both building up stocks of scientific books.

There are overlaps between the services provided by the National Central Library and the National Lending Library of Science and Technology. Both of these libraries have drawn my Department's attention to the need to make sense of their roles. More generally, we need to consider how far reference and lending facilities need to be co-ordinated.

We are not at present giving users of these libraries as efficient a service as we could; and the whole thing is getting increasingly expensive. All the four libraries are financed by my Department and, as things are, I have no means of judging whether the total expenditure or its distribution is right. That is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want me to allow to continue.

I myself think that there is a strong case for having our great national library in Central London. But we must be sure how big a library we ought to build in Central London. We must be sure that we are taking account not only of the needs of users of all kinds, but of modern techniques affecting the need to store centrally. We must not, like the previous Government, assume that the arrangements of the past are automatically the right and proper arrangements for the future. We must store in London all that is necessary to meet users needs, but not more than is necessary: to do so would be a very great waste of resources.

On these matters I shall be advised by the committee that I propose to set up. We must have a careful and intelligent weighing of the issues involved. There will be no delay. I hope that the committee will report to me in a matter of months.

I want now to refer briefly to two passages in the Gracious Speech—

Before my right hon. Friend leaves the subject of the British Museum, may I put these points to him? Is he aware that that trustees of the museum might be quite satisfied now that we know for certain that my right hon. Friend is willing to site this library in Central London, and that all this rumpus will be done with?

Secondly, will he consider the committee of inquiry inviting other library organizations, such as the school library organisations and his own departmental staff who are concerned with library organisation, to be housed in the same centre, because this would be of considerable national value and save money to the Department?

I do not, of course, know the views of the trustees, but I am very glad to hear what my hon. Friend says in the first part of his interjection. As to the second part, I want a small, effective and efficient committee which will take evidence, quite naturally, from my own Department, and from other libraries and library associations. The lines of distinction between libraries present one of the difficult questions.

I turn now to that part of the Gracious Speech referring to the Plowden Report. After studying these proposals, we decided that vigorous action was necessary and that the right thing to do was to tackle first some of the worst physical deficiencies in schools of this type of area, and giving a priority to them.

Apart from the allocation of a total of about £10 million to major projects for the replacement of primary schools of this kind within the 1968–69 and 1969–70 major building programmes, the House will know that an additional special allocation of £16 million was announced by the Government in July. This is over and above the £300 million allocation for school building during these two years. The money will be available for both major and minor projects, and will not be restricted to primary schools. It is mainly a primary school problem, but not exclusively so.

For the reasons given during the debate on 16th March by my predecessor, the Government concluded that it would not be right for the educational priority areas to be determined in the first place by the central Government. We therefore sent a circular to local education authorities asking them to submit proposals, and giving them advice on the kind of district—not only the kind of school—which was most likely to qualify, and the kind of project that we would be ready to consider.

A number of Departments are concerned—it is fundamentally a question of rebuilding—and we are, naturally, in very close contact with one another. Replies to the circular are due next week. It is to be expected that there will be a large number of requests from authorities for a share of the £16 million, exceeding greatly the £16 million—that is bound to happen—so it will be necessary to study and assess proposals with very great care, and a special procedure has already been set up by myself within my Department. I hope to announce the allocations as soon as possible in the new year. This is very speedy action. A good deal of consultation and thought is needed. My hon. Friend will later refer to other aspects of the Plowden Report.

The Gracious Speech also referred, as did the right hon. Member for Hands-worth this morning, to the high priority which the Government will continue to give to increasing the supply of teachers. This is no exaggeration. In the year to last February the number of qualified teachers in our primary and secondary schools rose by 8,000, and for the first time exceeded 300,000 in total. This year, the number of students in the colleges of education is likely to be 95,000, a rise of 30,000 in three years. We can, therefore, look forward to an even more substantial growth of the teaching force over the next few years.

One feature that I find very significant and gratifying is the rate at which more mature people are entering the colleges of education. I am not here referring to the return of married teachers, although this is of the highest importance, but to the entry of new students over the age of 25 without previous teaching experience. Last year, about 6,000 of them entered training—about 18 per cent. of the total intake—and the number is steadily rising. These people form an invaluable element in our teaching force, and I have asked the colleges and local education authorities to make a major effort to build up further recruitment from this source.

How far can this growth in the number of mature entrants be connected with the growth of day training colleges, especially in the big cities?

It is difficult to give a precise answer. Directly we found this trend, we established outposts of day training. This accounts for a lot. No doubt the increase in the number of the new valuable recruits is due to the efforts that we made, but the increase began, so to speak, of its own for social reasons. It is difficult to guess—anyone can guess. May be people are getting tired of the rat race, and want to do something that really satisfies them as being a good work. I do not know the reasons. All I know is that these people are coming in in ever greater numbers, and it is most welcome.

A few weeks ago we were hearing much brave talk about the Opposition making a major onslaught on the Government's education policy. This, we were told, would be one of the major Amendments to the Gracious Speech. Instead, we are having this useful and more sober Friday debate.

I can see why the plan was changed. Comprehensive reorganisation has become an acutely embarrassing issue to the Conservatives. Their Brighton conference showed how bitterly divided they are. For the first time for very many years they actually had a ballot vote. It showed the strength of those who want not only to stop the forward march of comprehensive education, but to reverse it. In addition, there was that rowdy and unmannerly meeting outside the conference in which the right hon. Member for Handsworth was so very rudely treated and bore himself so well.

Comprehensive education has taken the place of hanging and flogging as the war cry of the ancient Britons in the Conservative Party. Strong echoes of this war cry can be heard on the benches behind the right hon. Member—and even beside him on the Front Bench when his right hon. Friends are sitting there. I know that he will go on as before, undeterred by these diehard howls and yells. He knows as well as I do that in this the large and vocal minority of members of the Conservative Party are wholly out of tune with the views of our people as a whole. The country has clearly made up its mind against selection in education. It is behind the Government in their firm determination to carry forward the policy of comprehensive reorganisation.

rose—

Order. I would again make a plea for reasonably brief speeches. Almost every hon. Member at present in the Chamber wishes to take part in this debate. Some of them have sat almost through the whole of the week's debate, hoping to catch my eye. I hope that any hon. Member called will remember that.

I want to take up the question of the British Museum Library, to which the Minister has referred. I find myself in almost complete disagreement with what he said and with his reasons for acting as he did. I do not want to waste the time of the House by going over the whole long history, but it was in 1928 that in paragraph 32 of its Report, the Royal Commission on Museums and Libraries stated:

"The problem of outstanding urgency in the case of the British Museum is that of a library."

At that time the Royal Commission put forward a scheme for rebuilding the library on the existing site at the then considerable sum of £205,000. But since then, and during the period of successive Governments, this story of the library has gone on without any rebuilding actually taking place.

As a result of the Report of the 1928 Royal Commission, a standing committee on museums was set up. Interrupted by the war, considerable discussion took place on the future of the British Museum Library. As a result of this discussion, in 1946, after discussion with the Socialist-controlled London County Council, the then Socialist Government—I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was then Dr. Hugh Dalton—in December, 1946, came to the conclusion in principle that the library should be constructed on the Bloomsbury site. My understanding is that as a result of that decision, taken by the then Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Greater London Development Plan was prepared, including in it provision for the acquistion of seven acres of site in Bloomsbury. That was a decision by the Socialist-controlled London County Council after the decision in principle of the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As the Minister said today, this London Development Plan was the subject of a long public inquiry in which various objections were made. Objections were made by the then Borough of Holborn and St. Pancras, which is represented by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), at the public inquiry at that time. After consideration of the plan and of all the objections put forward at the public inquiry, a firm decision was announced on 5th March, 1965, by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). It was quite clear and quite definite. It said:

"Mr. Duncan Sandys, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has approved with modifications…"

There was no reference in the modifications to the Bloomsbury site—

"the Development Plan for the Administrative County of London."

Nothing could have been a clearer decision than that, and it was after considering all the objections put forward by local authorities and the other interested parties.

We had a debate on this subject, which was properly raised by the hon. Lady, on 10th April, 1956. The then Parliamentary Secretary made quite clear in her reply to the hon. Lady that this was a firm decision which stood. There was no question then of going back or reconsidering the decision in principle in any way. Once the decision was firmly taken, plans went ahead for acquiring the necessary land. The fact is that the land on the Bloomsbury site has been sterilised ever since the publication of the development plan in 1951, and, so far as I know, there has never been any question of any other site being considered for the rebuilding of the library from that date until last Thursday.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the next stage after one has chosen the site and had discussions and taken into account all the objections, is that one appoints an architect or group of architects to work out a plan for the development of the site in detail. Sir Leslie Martin was appointed by the Trustees, after consultation with the then Minister of Works, to prepare a plan for the development of the site. In his plan he was instructed to take account of the needs, so far as possible on the site of the people who would be displaced and also of the commercial premises.

I think I am right in saying that 25 per cent. of the site then being acquired was set aside for this purpose. Sir Leslie Martin presented his plan to the Minister of Public Building and Works in the summer of 1964. It had previously been considered by the trustees of the British Museum. Then a firm decision was announced. A firm decision—I was there at the time—was made that the Government had approved in principle the plan prepared by Sir Leslie Martin and Mr. Colin St. John Wilson for the new British Museum Library, subject to consultation with the many interested authorities. Of course there had to be consultations, because a large part of the site was to be used in conjunction with the authorities of the Borough of Camden for the rehousing of those people who were a proportion—not the whole, I accept that—of those to be displaced both residentially and commercially.

May I ask what "subject to" means? "Subject to" means a decision which has been reached before consultations have been considered. "Subject to" has no other meaning.

A firm decision on the site was announced in 1955. Plans were then prepared going into quite a considerable amount of detail. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has seen them. Plans were prepared for the actual development of the site. Of course it was natural for any Government to have consultation about the detail of the plan, but there was no question of the principle of where the library was to be sited or not in any way at that time.

The Minister went on to say:

"The Ministry will now proceed to consult with these authorities with a view to working out ways and means of implementing the scheme."

There was no question of reconsidering the scheme or consulting any authority at this stage about the scheme as a whole. The consultation was to be about

"ways and means of implementing the scheme."

That was a firm decision and one would assume that consultations would have continued on the basis of implementing the scheme.

Now we have this decision of the right hon. Gentleman, which apparently had been taken without any consultation at all in the accepted meaning of the term. We know the reactions of the trustees of the British Museum to the arrangements for consultations which were made as contained in the very forceful letter from Lord Radcliffe. We know also the reaction of Camden Borough Council in the letter in The Times this morning. It seems extraordinary, not only that the trustees of the British Museum were not consulted about this decision, but that also apparently there was no con- sultation with the local authority most concerned, the London Borough of Camden.

Mr. Roy Shaw, Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee of the London Borough of Camden, said this in a letter to The Times this morning:

"We confidently expected further consultation with the Ministry in order to try to resolve the difficulties, but heard nothing more until Mr. Gordon Walker's announcement in the House."

It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to treat with the grossest discourtesy not only the trustees of the British Museum but also the local authority. I should like to know what consultation took place with the successors in title of London County Council, the Greater London Council. After all, it is its development plan which the Secretary of State is now overturning. Perhaps we can be told at the end of the debate what consultations took place with the Greater London Council about its development plan before this decision was taken.

The excuse used by the Secretary of State to justify his action is that a further inquiry is needed into the question of libraries as a whole. We have just had a very comprehensive study into the question of libraries. The University Grants Committee took four years to consider the whole question. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that an independent committee—we have no idea who is to be asked to serve on such a committee, or who will accept the invitation to serve on it—will in a matter of months be able to review the whole of the work undertaken by the University Grants Committee?

Paragraph 334 of the Report of the University Grants Committee on Libraries says:

"We consider that the British Museum should become the National Library and that as many of the above functions as possible should be carried out by that institution as a matter of urgency… Since the Trustees and the Director of the British Museum have dual responsibility for both a museum and a library it is the opinion of the Committee that the range of functions suggested as proper to a national library could be fully carried out by the British Museum only when the new library building is completed and the library departments reconstituted and housed as a unit."

This was the opinion of the University Grants Committee.

No.

It was the opinion of the Committee on Libraries of the University Grants Committee. What other committee is the Secretary of State proposing should be set up to re-examine the work which this committee has done over about four years?

As a result of the Secretary of State's decision, certain other questions must now arise. What is to be the position about the development plan? What is to be the position of the land, and the buildings upon it, which has been acquired over the years by the Ministry of Public Building and Works? Are those to be sold? If so, to whom are they to be sold? What amount has been spent by all Governments up to date on acquiring land for this purpose?

The Secretary of State says that a re-thinking of the whole policy of the rebuilding of the British Museum Library can be done without any delay. We should lee told a little more about this. First, as I understand it, if the Secretary of State is right, a Committee will have to be appointed. It will not be able to examine this whole question in a matter of days or weeks or months. It will take years or more for the whole question to be examined. Then the whole process of designating a site, amending the Greater London Development Plan, holding a public inquiry, and appointing architects, must be gone through. Sir Leslie Martin and his team spent almost four years on this subject, simply working out the outline scheme. Then the necessary land will have to be acquired and the detailed plans prepared. The decision of the Secretary of State, announced on Thursday, puts off the rebuilding of the British Museum Library—the National Library—by at least 10 years, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well.

I do not.

This is the wrong decision, taken in the wrong way, taken with the greatest discourtesy to everybody who might be concerned in the negotiations in any way. Knowing the Secretary of State, I do not expect that he will now reverse his decision, though I believe that he should do so. A very heavy responsibility indeed rests upon him for the wrong decision which has been taken by him and by the Labour Government.

I should like to discuss for a while the science policy of the Labour Government and, in particular, to draw attention to the need for a science policy in the field of collaboration in Europe. I want first to discuss—this is difficult, in view of Cabinet secrecy—the exact situation which now concerns central science policy. We know that Sir Solly Zuckerman heads the Government Scientific Service, as well as being Chairman of the Central Advisory Committee. The intention is presumably to build up a secretariat advising the Cabinet in the Cabinet Office.

Are we moving towards the situation which exists in France of a centrally co-ordinated secretariat? I hope that we are. In France the Interministerial Committee for Scientific and Technological Research is assisted by Délégation Générale à Recherche Scientifique et Technique. In the United States the Federal Council for Science and Technology is assisted by the Bureau of the Budget and the Office of Science and Technology. With such a strong central organisation, the possibility of choosing rationally, not as a result of departmental pressure, is obviously much greater.

Perhaps it is worth stressing here that no system of committees per se will ever achieve rational choice. The vital prerequisite is for working scientists to involve themselves to a far greater extent than hitherto in defining and questioning the basis and purpose of their own research. The ideal to which we are all presumably working in determining any central science policy is for science and scientific methodology to form an unobtrusive part of the normal apparatus of administration.

I want to say a little about some of the more extravagant claims about science policy and, in particular, some of the remarks which have been made about the growth of science and the rather alarmist reports which have been coming out, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, who once held office in the Department of Education and Science.

Lord Bowden should know that in science the exponential curve is not an absolute, but depends upon the time scale. The growth of a foetus and baby follows an exponential curve, as does the growth of most plants. To equate and project scientific growth with its mathematical form is horrifyingly naive. The exponential growth curve is in fact modified in most fields and becomes an S-shape. I am glad to see that this is to a certain extent recognised in the latest report of the Council on Scientific Policy. The limiting or saturation factor is made up of manpower, national resources, and a host of other factors, many of which will reflect themselves in political attitudes.

Instead, therefore, of developing this attitude of mind, which could easily be translated into the very worst type of panic and dynamic intervention, we should be examining and breaking down the component parts and accepting the fact that we should be creating a climate in which these saturation factors can operate. For instance, anyone who had said some years ago that the limiting factor on the building of supersonic aircraft would have been noise would have been laughed out of court. Such a person would have been told that the only limiting factor was technology or expense. It is now quite clear to most people that one of the important limiting factors on many technological and scientific projects will in fact be the social consideration. We need to develop a system that takes that into consideration very early on.

I should like to continue to attack the type of loose thinking about scientific growth which was demonstrated in the first report of the Council of Scientific Policy. Their graph on research and development uses a logarithmic vertical scale which increasingly magnifies smaller amounts and distorts trends so that true relationships are difficult to read. A central critique of the Council of Scientific Policy is the rising trend of research. This was stated in the first report. It has been now to a certain extent challenged but not categorically denied. The graph shows a rapid rise over the last 10 years of fundamental research in the old D.S.I.R., now the S.R.C. and the Min-Tech. In fact, if their same figures are plotted on a graph with a constant vertical scale so that real trends can be seen, the increase is only 2 million a year over the last 10 years and the trend is towards smaller increases. It is true that the Research Council's rate of increase of 13 per cent. is greater than any other sector, but since this is a self-based percentage and only amounts to 6 per cent. of total expenditure in R. and D., it is rising in proportion to G.N.P. at a rate of less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. per year. I hope I have said enough to illustrate that too simpliste a view of the growth in science expenditure can be dangerous. Intervention at this stage, I think, could be fatal for this country, and I hope that we shall watch this position very carefully.

The latest report on science policy tackles some of the major elements that we have got to deal with in making a decision. I should like to draw attention to the decision that has to be made on whether we develop the 300 G.V. accelerator CERN. Though this report comes out in favour of backing CERN, I wish we were more aware of the political impact of some of these decisions. I want scientific evaluation of research projects. The French have a system where their CERN project comes off their foreign affairs budget. I do not wish to go for this, but I think that we should have developed a system whereby we could have shown more enthusiasm for CERN and its latest development in Europe.

For months now there have been constant rumours in Europe that Britain is not prepared to back this new accelerator, and the political initiative has been seized by France who, without any real commitment, have said that they support this in general principle. We should have made such a statement nine months ago, and it would have done an immense amount of good in ensuring our commitment to scientific and technological integration inside Europe.

There is another project which is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and this concerns the European molecular biology organisation. I know that there are real arguments as to whether we should establish a laboratory inside Europe for developing molecular biology. There are good arguments for saying that there is no need, as in the case of nuclear physics, for a specific laboratory. But expensive computers are being used in connection with molecular biology, and this is an essential piece of equipment for advance in that field. Many people in this country feel that we should have a European laboratory. What I am certain is necessary is that EMBO, which previously has been backed by the Volkswagen Trust, should be backed by European Governments, and the work, which can continue irrespective of the decision on finding a European laboratory, should be continued with Government money.

I am appalled by the waste of resources in science research which is going on in Europe I believe in the whole political idea of European unity, but we cannot go on in Europe, or even in the world, duplicating scientific effort and research. I know that because of the division of science and technology in this country, some of one's remarks ought properly to be directed to the Ministry of Technology. But let us take the example of fast reactors and the research into development costs which is going on in Europe at the present time. Britain has an acknowledged lead. We shall have a prototype fast reactor at Dounreay on power in 1971 producing 250 megawatts of electricity. We lead the world in this technology. Yet in Germany they are just going to commit probably £130 million to produce two prototype fast reactors dealing with steam and sodium cooling, and in France they are building another prototype fast reactor. There is a totally needless duplication of research and scientific effort so that we cannot collaborate on projects like CERN and EMBRO.

This is against the background of increasing American penetration into our basic industries. The brain drain of scientists goes on not just for better salaries but for better facilities, laboratories and equipment. This is a responsibility that weighs heavily on the Secretary of State for Education and Science, just as it does on the Minister of Technology.

I think the Government have taken a more radical look at the whole science policy to be pursued in this country than have any other Government in our history, and I think we are beginning to get near coherence in these decisions. It involves a heavy expenditure and it also involves decisions which affect our balance of payments when making decisions about European investment. However, to get worried about the balance of payments at the moment is to lose sight of the long-term problem and solution. Unless we commit and Europeanise our science and research in this country, then increasingly America will come into the field not just of science and research but of industry and will establish this industrial colossus in Europe.

There is a book based on American penetration of industry which is becoming a best seller in France. That book draws attention to the extraordinary degree of penetration in France of the United States. In France the United States controls 80 per cent. of the computer industry, 45 per cent. of the synthetic rubber industry, 65 per cent. of production of telecommunication materials and 45 per cent. of petrol distribution. These are facts which the Government should press home in their case for European integration. These are facts which we should bring home to the French people.

Nothing causes more enthusiasm in Europe than the prospect of real scientific and technological collaboration—not just amongst politicians but amongst technocrats. Particularly is this felt in France. This is the time to produce concrete proposals. It may be that we should wait for negotiations before we reveal our ace cards in this field, but we are now placed in a difficult situation when negotiations are pending. It is now, in order to pressurise France, that we should reveal these cards, explaining how we can share the technology of Capenhurst for uranium enrichment, explaining how we can help in the field of fast reactors and developing a dialogue. If we can develop that dialogue we shall make it clear in France that meaningful technical collaboration can only take place on the political and economic basis that a Common Market policy represents.

This idea which has been floating around in France and in Europe generally that one can have technological collaboration outside the European Economic Community is total nonsense. The way to convince them is to argue it out sector by sector, industry by industry and scientific project by scientific project. It is recognised in the second report of the Council for Scientific Policy that there is a real need to Europeanise our best research institutions. This is the way we must go, and this is the way that the Department of Education and Science can give a substantial lead.

I should like to say a few words about science policy in this country, and in particular the need to redress the balance, to go away from too much emphasis on nuclear physics and go back to the life sciences. I am extremely glad that the National Environment Research Council has been established and that it is increasing its budget year by year. This is wholly right. The fields of oceanography, for example, are branches of science which need to be elaborated, branches in which this country traditionally has an immense rôle to play and a great contribution to make.

To make a constituency point, nothing has given me greater pleasure since I became a Member of the House than two major decisions of this Government and, in particular, of the Department of Education and Science, which affect my own constituency. First, Plymouth has been allowed to take its College of Advanced Technology to polytechnic status. Second, we have been allowed to have a teacher training college. Plymouth now has the prospect of becoming a centre for education and making a fine contribution especially in the field of maritime science. We already have the Marine Biology Centre, and I welcome the increasing commitment of the National Environment Research Council. It is in this sort of way, by bringing new work in science to areas remote from London which badly need regional help and development, that the Government can make a real contribution. I am sure that, in the next 10 years, the National Environment Research Council can give us a major place in these new sciences, but the decision must be taken now and the necessary investment must be made now.

Building up a purely national oceanography research programme would be foolish. Plainly, what we must do from the outset is tie it in with the French, with their heavy commitment to oceanography, and develop a European approach in this field as in many other fields of science. If we do that, in ten years we may well have political and industrial unity, but we shall have in addition a degree of unity among people thinking along the same lines and, in particular, in the fields of science which are and must always be international.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his most interesting speech on various aspects of science. I admire his expertise and regret that I am unable to compete with it.

I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends in regretting the Secretary of State's decision about the British Museum Library. I know the area well. I have used the library in the museum for many years, and I started as a book seller in that area nearly 40 years ago. It struck me as rather strange the other day that the Borough of Camden should come so far down into the centre of London, and I was delighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) asked the Secretary of State whether the Greater London Council had been consulted, since it is responsible for the London development plan.

I wish to refer now to one aspect of the subject of comprehensive education and, in particular, to the reorganisation of secondary education in the Borough of Ealing, of which my constituency forms part. The Ealing Council submitted a plan to the Secretary of State's predecessor in July, 1966, and this plan, which related to the old Borough of Ealing, not to Acton or Southall, was rejected by the Secretary of State at that time. Shortly before that scheme was submitted to him, the joint parents' committee of the grammar schools of Ealing brought an action for an injunction in the High Court against the London Borough of Ealing, on the ground that there had been insufficient regard paid to the wishes of parents and, in particular, to the provisions of the 1944 Act. The parents lost their case.

It is not my intention this afternoon to argue the merits of the proposal put forward by the Ealing education committee and now submitted to the Secretary of State. I am concerned solely with the degree of consultation there has been with teachers and parents before the scheme was submitted to the Ealing Council and ultimately to the Secretary of State. It was clearly stated in paragraph 40 of Circular 10/65:

"The smooth inception and continuing success of any scheme of reorganisation will depend on the co-operation of teachers and the support and confidence of parents. To secure these there must be a process of consultation and explanation before any scheme is approved by an authority for submission to the Secretary of State. An authority should take all those concerned into its confidence at as early a stage as possible."

That passage has been quoted many times. It is so important that it ought to be framed and hung on the walls of all education offices throughout the country.

Whatever consultation took place before the first scheme was discussed and put forward in July, 1966—incidentally, it was negligible—one hoped that, after the scheme had been rejected by the Secretary of State, the Ealing Council would then consult the teachers and parents before the preparation of an alternative scheme. One scheme had been turned down. Another was to be produced. One would have expected the authority to come back and consult the parents.

What actually occurred was certainly not my idea of consultation. The new proposals for comprehensive schooling in Ealing were approved by the education committee on 22nd September, a Friday not so long ago. Four days before that, on 18th September, the borough's chief education officer met representatives of the Joint Four and the National Association of Head Teachers. Thus, they were given only three days in which to make their comments on the scheme, comments which, incidentally, were very unfavourable.

What of the parents? At no time did the education committee agree to meet the joint parents' committee, the committee which had moved for an injunction against the council last July. I do not say that this joint parents' committee represents all parents in Ealing.

You can say that again.

Exactly as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that it does not necessarily follow that the joint committee in Enfield represents all the parents there. However, in spite of frequent requests from the parents' committee, it was not received. Although this parents' committee may not represent all parents, it is the only organised group representing parents in the borough, a large number of them having a direct interest in the eight grammar schools.

Throughout the whole preparation of the new scheme, the parents were never invited to meet the education committee and were never consulted. I regret to say that the council's relations with the parents' committee have considerably worsened in recent days, following what I can only think must have been a sad lack of co-ordination within the Ealing Council. Obviously, the action for an injunction brought against the council last year was a costly business. All the money had to be raised by voluntary contributions. As the costs had not been fully paid up to a week or two ago, the council threatened one of the members of the parents' committee, Mr. Louis Rubens, with bankruptcy proceedings.

This threat was reported in the Press on 25th October last, although the total costs, apart from a small outstanding item of interest, had in fact been paid to the council a week earlier, on 18th October. The threat of bankruptcy proceedings thus publicly announced in the Press could be a serious matter for Mr Rubens and his business. I very much hope that the borough council will make an equally public apology for what has occurred.

At no time did the Ealing education committee consult the parents before its plan was agreed. Its method this time of consulting parents was to ask 24,000 children in the borough to take a form back to their parents. This letter, outlining the scheme—indeed, it does more than outline it; it goes into great detail—went to the parents on 28th September, six days after the plan had been approved by the education committee.

The letter stated:

"The Council are anxious that parents shall be fully informed."

At the bottom there is a slip which the parent is expected to tear off:

"I acknowledge the receipt of the information about the Council's proposed scheme for the reorganisation of secondary education in the Ealing area."

Is that the hon. Lady's idea of consultation? To me, it is not consultation. It is dictatorship. It is exactly the same as the other item in the Queen's Speech when the proposed changes are announced in the House of Lords and the Speech adds that consultations will take place. This was not consultation. The scheme was a fait accompli.

The burden of the hon. Member's speech so far has been that consultation between the local authority and various bodies, including parents, has not been satisfactory. I am not clear why he appears to be suggesting that the Department has already made a decision which, to the best of my knowledge, it has not yet reached.

I am sorry if I did not make it clear to the hon. Lady that the decision to which I referred is one by the Ealing education committee and the Ealing Council. I was coming to the point about the Department in a moment.

Since the end of September this scheme has been rushed through with inordinate speed. A special council meeting was held on 11th October, 20 days in advance of the normal meeting. The scheme was approved, after many closures, on a majority vote. No doubt the council is very anxious that the Secretary of State gives speedy approval so that the plans can be well under way before the municipal elections next May.

During the last few weeks the right hon. Gentleman has been accused of taking more than one decision without adequate consultation. The plan for the reorganisation of secondary education in Ealing is on his desk or the right hon. Lady's desk at the moment. I hope that even at this late hour he will give those parents an opportunity to express their views and will receive a deputation so that they can put forward their views in accordance with the Education Act, 1944, and also with paragraph 40 of Circular 10/65, which I read out. It is an opportunity which they have been completely denied up to now.

I will seek to comply with Mr. Speaker's wish for brevity in speeches. I should, however, hate to see a time limit imposed on speeches, although I am firmly convinced that the House has far too many windbags, most of whom have the suffix P.C. When I started in journalism the first vocational lesson which I received related to the Book of Genesis. It was pointed out to me that the story of the creation could be told in about half a column. My second lesson was contained in the Gospel according to St. John. It was pointed out that the most poignant passage in the English language consisted of one sentence of two words, "Jesus wept." I shall not seek to emulate either the Apostles or the Prophets. To try to do so would be an impertinence. Nevertheless, I shall confine my remarks to one or two points which have already been raised in the debate and say a word or two about the Amendment which carries my name.

I congratulate the Government on their progress in education. Notwithstanding the difficult economic situation which they inherited, they are spending about £140 for every £100 spent by the previous Administration on education. Although there is no room for complacency, that is encouraging.

I was interested in what my right hon. Friend said about the supply of teachers, but I have the impression that far too many teachers are being selected for teacher-training courses who lack the right vocational background. This is particularly true among girls. Too many of them appear to be taking up teaching as a pin-money occupation. We ought to look at the methods of selection for colleges of education. I believe that one of the reasons for the lack of a sense of vocation is the philosophy pursued by the Conservative Party during the 13 years they were in power when they exalted the spiv and the land speculator to great heights in society and looked down upon those who pursued useful social work, such as teachers and probation officers.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement about his policy on comprehensive education. We have had an example only this week in which it was shown in Birmingham that large numbers of children were being admitted to hospital because of the strain of the 11-plus examination.

Nonsense.

The hon. Member says, "Nonsense". We are not discussing what is between his ears. I do not know whether he seriously disputes the fact that in Birmingham large numbers of children have gone into hospital as a result of strain which has come about because of the 11-plus examination.

That is exactly what I am disputing. I do not know whether the hon. Member has been present during previous education debates, but if he has been he will know that I am in favour of comprehensive education in principle. But the example which he has given is just about the silliest argument in favour of his case that he could produce.

The hon. Member has expressed his point of view.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not think that there is far too much rigidity in school time tables? I should like State schools to be opened on a Saturday morning in order to look after the backward children who at present do not receive proper attention because of overcrowded classes. Many members of the teaching profession are giving private tuition in out-of-school hours, and I see no reason why they should not be invited to do so, proper financial terms being arranged, in State schools on Saturday mornings. I do not know whether it is possible for enlightened local authorities to do that already within the existing regulations or whether legislation would be required, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State would deal with the point.

I turn to adult education. Recently I had in my constituency a man who retired at the age of 65 and who, through no fault of his own, had been unable to proceed to higher education in his youth. All his life he had tried to improve himself by extra mural classes and other methods. He thought that when he retired he would like to take a course in adult education, and he was accepted by Fircroft College. Unfortunately, the local education authority would not give him a grant. I thought that that was disgraceful. This man had worked hard all his life and had paid his rates and taxes, but because he was 65 the local authority would give him no grant. In modern conditions he might well live another 10 or 20 years, and his education would be of use to him and also to the community in which he lives.

I turn to the Amendment on the Common Market, which I support, and I make no apology for doing so even though we are mainly discussing education, for I regard this as one of the most important issues facing the country. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made yesterday an elegant and felicitous speech. He is usually very fair, but I thought that he was a little harsh on the Prime Minister and those who have been assisting him in the Common Market negotiations. He referred somewhat scathingly to the pace and momentum with which these attempts to negotiate were going on. I thought that he was unfair because I consider that the attempts to negotiate are proceeding with all the pace and momentum which is possible for any two-legged creature when he is wriggling on his belly. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is a most undignified posture for this nation and that it ought to be altered as quickly as possible.

That is why in the Amendment we call for an end to these negotiations if something cannot be achieved satisfactorily within a reasonable period. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we shall not take "No" for an answer. I should like greater clarification of that. Does it mean that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs is to be kept hanging round the capitals of Europe as the best dressed beggar on the Continent for ever, or that the Foreign Secretary will take a bold new initiative and send a gunboat down the Seine? Our people are entitled to an answer. We cannot continue for very much longer in the way we are going on. If we do, the present leader of the nation will be in the same unenviable position as the other Harold in 1066.

This misguided attempt to enter the Common Market has paralysed the country. Investment is held up. The new National Plan has been delayed. The chance of a purposeful policy for exports being worked out quickly is remote. But it is worse than that. Many of the Commonwealth countries are busy diversifying exports as the result of these very foolish attempts to get into the Common Market. Doggy stories may not be particularly welcome on this side, but the present situation reminds me of the dog in Aesop's fable who, when crossing a bridge, saw the reflection of a bone in the water and dropped the one he was carrying for the one he saw there.

I intervened during the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday to ask if the logic of his argument was for federalism. He suggested that I should sit back and listen. I am a very humble Member of the House and I sat back and listened carefully, but he went on to say nothing to relieve my mind of that thought.

I listened to the hon. Gentleman's intervention yesterday with very great pleasure. Does he realise that the Foreign Secretary gave the game away with regard to proposed entry? When referring to the political and economic consequences, he used the term "full commitment". Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this means complete political union, with all its constitutional consequences?

I think that there is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) has said, but it is up to the Foreign Secretary to clarify the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the hint and do so. I mentioned to him that I might be referring to this and other matters, but he is not here.

The point about what my right hon. Friend said is borne out by a speech made by the late Hugh Gaitskell. On 7th November, 1962, Hugh Gaitskell said, referring to the then Government:

"What do the Government propose? They say that Europe is going to be the great new force standing equally with Russia and the United States."

That was the argument deployed by the Foreign Secretary. Hugh Gaitskell went on:

"How can we conceive this happening unless there is a single foreign policy? How can we conceive it happening unless there is a single Foreign Secretary to express that policy, and a single Prime Minister and, therefore, a single Legislature? This is federation. This is the logic of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 1018.]

I think that the Foreign Secretary owes it to the House to explain why it does not mean that.

For the sake of brevity I will adopt the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) yesterday. It was a brilliant speech. After he had sat down I thought how sad it was that a person so brilliant and learned and so long in the service of the Labour movement should have been sacked like an office boy, and that the Prime Minister should have brought into his Government someone who has no record of service in the Labour Party and who has unfortunately caused one or two troubles in Europe. I refer to my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.

Caligula gained some notoriety by making a horse into a proconsul. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has gone one better. He has made a donkey into a proconsul. It may well be that the policy about the Common Market that we are pursuing is a bit hybrid because it affects the Front Bench opposite as well as the Government Front Bench. It is a product of cross-breeding, one without any decent parentage and, I suspect, with no future.

My noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has been engaged in some incidents on the Continent which have all the elements of British pantomime, including occasional appearances by the Demon King himself, the Foreign Secretary. I support most of his other ventures but not this one.

There was an article in the Daily Mirror this morning about it. It had a ring of truth. It was from someone who was present at the various conferences with Lord Chalfont. For the sake of brevity I shall not read a number of the things that I should have liked to read, but I will direct attention to a paragraph which says:

"Twice, in response to questions, Lord Chalfont stated that France and Germany had already been warned of the consequences of a veto along the lines he had indicated."

What is the truth about that? The House is entitled to know. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us? Has this sort of thing been going on? I have referred elsewhere during the Recess to the extraordinary practice of my noble Friend the Minister of State of making very important pronouncements in various places outside the House. It is disgraceful that this should go on.

The Government ought to stop the practice of giving non-attributable interviews. The non-attributable interview has all the moral grandeur of the anonymous letter or the nobility of the poison pen communication. The Government ought to stop giving these interviews. If the Government will not do so, the Press should set a lead in refusing to attend non-attributable conferences, because they are out of keeping with the traditions of the popular Press. Lord Northcliffe would not have allowed any member of his staff to attend a non-attributable conference. The Press ought to look seriously at this.

All this is a very sleazy way to conduct public business. Public business should be conducted on the floor of the House of Commons and not in first-class hotel rooms in Italy, Switzerland or France. I do not think that Lord Attlee, whose death we all mourn, would have acquiesced in this sort of business. I hope that the Government Front Bench will pay very serious attention to the matter. I think that the credit of my right hon. Friends is at stake. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

I do not require any assistance from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The record of my right hon. Friends is as the driven snow compared with the record of hon. Members opposite. I merely mention Suez in passing and the collusion that went on at that time and some of the statements made at the Dispatch Box then. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would be well advised to keep quiet.

The Government ought to set a time limit to the Common Market nonsense. We were not elected on a policy of going into the Common Market. I urge them to abandon the application and concentrate on putting into operation the economic policies which we promised the nation we would put into effect.

For the benefit of the Foreign Secretary—I am sorry that he is not here—I would say this—words he might recognise. Some of us are sick and tired of hearing him carting his Common Market policy from conference to conference and capital to capital, and we hope that he will pack it up and get on with something else. I hope that the Government will take note of the movement of opinion in the Parliamentary Labour Party and the country as a whole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) suggested in his speech yesterday that there was overwhelming support for this initiative, as it is called, to go into Europe. I do not know where he has been for the last few days. People have been leaping off the pro-Common Market hearse and trying to jump on the anti-Market band-waggon with such rapidity that there is a serious shortage of accommodation at the meetings of the Common Market Committee.

All Governments make mistakes, and this Government have made a serious blunder in going ahead with this Common Market policy. I hope that they will be big enough to recognise that, to abandon it, and to get on with implementing the election manifesto.

I shall not follow the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) in his remarks, because if I did so it would lead me profoundly to disagree with most of them.

I join in welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position, and the hon. Lady to hers, but the right hon. Gentleman, who I am sorry is no longer here, was rather rude, by implication, about me. I think that he intended to include me in the expressions "ancient Britons" and "backwoodsmen", because I am, and have always been, 100 per cent. against the Government's policy of eliminating selection from secondary education, and for a few minutes I would like to explain why.

Why has there been this renunciation of the generally agreed policy of 1944, not so very many years ago? All parties were agreed then that when the time came for his secondary education some effort should be made to find out whether a child would be best educated in what were then called grammar schools, secondary modern schools, or secondary technical schools. Being wise after the event, I have long felt that it would have been a good idea to call them something different—Dr. Arnold, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Michael Faraday, or some terminology like that, and there might not have been this outcry, though in my constituency for the last six or seven years I have not had more than one letter from a parent complaining that his child has not got into a grammar school.

All primary maintained schools are comprehensive, but since all children differ, and will always differ, it is necessary at some stage—not necessarily at 11, and not finally at any stage —to diagnose what the Act called a child's "aptitude and ability" if we are to enable each individual child to lead a full life—that is the primary purpose of education —and, though only secondarily, to be materially useful to the nation. But now, in the name of "social justice", and under the dread threat of "social divisiveness," all this is to be upset.

Circular 10/65 said:

"The Government are aware that the complete elimination of selection and separatism in secondary education will take time to achieve."

One is reminded of Lenin's objection to "bourgeois separatism". Does this mean that we are to advance to the elimination of selection within the secondary schools? And why, if selection is to be eliminated for the secondary stage, should it not also be eliminated for the higher stage?

This policy is being thrust down the throats of unwilling local education authorities and parents, and it must be damaging where, as in Hertfordshire, there are excellent grammar schools and excellent secondary modern schools. We were reminded the other day by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that the Prime Minister himself said that the grammar schools would be abolished only over his dead body, but it looks as though the grammar schools are to be abolished, without our having the compensating consolation of the dead body.

The Hertfordshire local education authority has been bulldozed into up- setting the existing very satisfactory state of affairs, and is to adopt what the Minister calls

"an evolutionary approach"

to

"the problem of developing a non-selective pattern of secondary education."

Although the Minister realises that

"a policy of gradualism does reflect the Authority's own preference for a preservational rather than a radical approach to reorganisation",

he accepts this

"on the understanding that it is consistent with a genuine intention to eliminate selection and selective schools as quickly as possible."

If the Hertfordshire local education authority has such an intention, it will be doing a great disservice to education and to the children of Hertfordshire if it puts it into effect.

I am not alone in these opinions. Some weeks ago in The Times the vice-chancellors of no fewer than 25 of our 40 or so universities—and they cannot all be Tories, even if they are "ancient Britons"—writing as

"people concerned with the preservation and extension of intellectual excellence"

expressed themselves

"alarmed lest some of the plans for secondary reorganisation…. may lead to denial of opportunity for the individual pupil of ability, particularly if he comes from a poor or uneducated background, and may have serious results for the Universities, and therefore for the community.…This is already happening.…. We fear the result will be a decline of academic standards which, even from the most material view of national economic needs, would be disastrous."

That other well-known "backwoodsman", Lord James of Rusholme, who was described in "The World at One" as being a Labour supporter, advocates a system

"in which every opportunity is given to the able child with whom I am particularly concerned.… If resources are limited, we have got to divert a fair proportion of those resources to institutions for the able, whether they are particular kinds of schools, or universities, or teachers colleges, or whatever…What I want to show people is that selection…. is not undemocratic. It is an attempt to give a child the kind of education which will suit it best."

Finally, may I quote yet another "ancient Briton", Lord Snow, at one time a member of the Labour Government. In New York on the 6th October of this year he said:

"The pressure from academics has led the Soviet Union to abandon its belief in complete egalitarianism. People throughout the world now agree that everyone ought to be educated to the maximum of his potential…but…. a great deal of the highest achievements of mankind appears to depend upon the gifts of a very snail number of abnormally talented people endowed by God or chance genetics",

and according to The Times he called upon the United States

"to provide special and privileged education for its intellectually talented children."

Lord Snow was preaching to the converted. The Americans and Russians woke up to this fact some time ago. I think that he would do better to come home and preach to his own Government.

Let us experiment with the idea of comprehensive schools as long as they are purpose built, and as long as there are no other good schools in the neighbourhood already, but do not let us change for the sake of change, and long before the "experiment" has proved itself one way or the other.

I do not think that the Government have anything to be ashamed of in their educational record over the last three years. Despite economic difficulties, squeezes, freezes, and all the rest during this period, we have made real and steady progress in education. It contrasts somewhat with similar squeezes and freezes under the Tory Party, when education was always one of the first things to suffer. Any remarks, suggestions or criticisms which I make are put forward in a constructive spirit.

I want to talk about a number of educational aspects. It would be convenient for me to take them according to the age of children, starting from the youngest. I want, first, to interpose one point. I have always believed strongly in the fullest consultation at all levels between administration—both national and local—teachers and parents. But let us never forget that the purpose of education is to teach children. In any decisions made at any time the interests of the children concerned should always be paramount.

Over the last few years numerous reports have been published concerning various sectors of education. One of the most important, if not the most important, was the Plowden Report. One section of that Report dealt with nursery schools. I would not claim that the provision of nursery schools is the top priority in the education world, but I plead with the Government to use a little of the money they have given for the Plowden recommendations to make a start with the provision of nursery education, particularly in those areas where there are many socially deprived children. It is always easy to say that the time is not opportune, or that it is not of first priority, and that it can be done this year, next year, or the year after. Once a start has been made it is easier to build upon that foundation in the future.

The Plowden Report showed serious deficiencies in our primary schools. This is not something that grew up overnight; it has accumulated over a long period. Most of my teaching career was spent when the party opposite was in power. The biggest criticism that I have of Conservative education policy during that period is that it did not devote a fair proportion of the educational budget to primary education.

Universities, further education and secondary education came off well, but primary education did badly. Only in 1962, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) took office, was an attempt made to reverse this trend, and I think that even the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he was not as successful as he would have liked. My biggest tribute to this Government is that during their period of office they have made a continuous attempt to reverse this trend and have devoted a bigger proportion of the educational budget to primary education.

I want to make one reference to the £16 million which is being provided for educational priority areas. I hope that the Government will resist the temptation —and I know that many hon. Members will bring pressure to bear upon them to do this—to spread this money lightly over the whole country. I am sure that the best value will be obtained if this £16 million is concentrated in certain major areas where the social deprivation is greatest. This means that it will be concentrated mostly in the large conurbations. It would be a mistake to spread it too widely over the country.

Another aspect of the Plowden recommendations concerns the age of transfer. The Plowden Report recommended that the age should be 12. I am all for flexibility in education, but I foresee a danger if we become too flexible and have too many ages of transfer in different parts of the country. We are having transfers at 11 and 12, and schools with children of ages varying from 9 to 13 in various places. This is a real handicap in respect of a very important economic factor—mobility of labour.

One of the biggest drawbacks to mobility of labour in the past has been the widely varying educational standards in different parts of the country. If we try to be too flexible, with too many ages of transfer and too many different systems, we are likely to get into difficulties.

I question whether the time has not come to consolidate the whole G.C.E. procedure, especially with reference to the O-level examinations. In my view, there are far too many boards offering G.C.E. with syllabuses which vary too widely in different parts of the country. This can be a real restriction on people moving from one part of the country to another, especially where they have children of secondary school age.

I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden). I taught for 13 years in a secondary modern school, and if I learnt anything in that period it was that the selective system of education is not only wrong but positively harmful to the children concerned. The same arguments apply whether there be selection at 11, 12 or 13 years of age. Selection is inaccurate. We estimate that it is up to 25 per cent. inaccurate.

I taught in a very good secondary modern school in a county which, fortunately, had G.C.E. O level courses in all its secondary modern schools. I was getting children through who had failed the 11-plus, with five, six, seven, eight and nine O levels, while in the equivalent grammar schools many children were leaving before they took the O level examination and many other passed only one or two O levels. That was all right in Hampshire, but if those children had lived in other counties which did not have these opportunities they would have been condemned for ever because of their failing the 11-plus examination. They would have lost their opportunities.

Secondly, the right hon. Member for Handsworth gave some figures earlier on which he said alarmed him. He referred to the small percentage of working-class children who, over the years, had gained places at universities. One of the major reasons for these low figures is the selective system of secondary education.

Thirdly, the whole selective system has failed miserably to produce the type of education which British children need in the second half of the twentieth century.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he would also advocate the complete elimination of selection within a comprehensive school and, secondly, for higher education?

If the hon. Member is asking whether I advocate the elimination of streaming in secondary education, inside comprehensive schools, the answer is "No", but there are tremendous social and educational advantages to be gained from having all children taught on one site and mixing together for nonacademic subjects.

This also enables something else to happen, the technical term for which is setting, whereby a child can be in the A stream for English and in the B stream for mathematics. He can be streamed according to his ability in various subjects.

I am being quite genuine when I say that I am reluctantly forced to the conclusion that further legislation is needed to deal with the system of comprehensive education. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State telling us, rightly, how much had been done by voluntary means. I wish that we could have done it all by voluntary means, but because I believe so strongly in principles that I have put forward I believe that we shall need legislation to overcome the backwoodsmen from Bournemouth and, probably, also from Southend. I must point out that I am referring not to the hon. Member but to his local authority.

I would like to see this legislation introduced with a period of transition, after which it would be illegal for any secondary school to have selective entry. I am not asking for this to be done tomorrow or even next year, but it must be done at some time in the future so that we can now begin moving towards it.

One argument which has been used against me—it has been raised this morning—is that this is a matter for local authorities. I contest that view. In principle, this is a matter for central Government. Just as it was the duty of central Government to ensure minimum standards in all our schools—and they set up an inspectorate for this—the principle of a non-selective secondary system is something to be decided by central Government. Its application is a job for local authorities, in consultation with the central Government, with the idea of creating the type of comprehensive system best suited to the various areas.

In the meantime, I hope that the Secretary of State will be ruthless in rejecting pseudo-comprehensive schemes, maintaining selection in some disguised form, and those systems—whether suggested by a Conservative or by a Labour council —which are educationally unsound, as some are. A good system is not attained. by attaching the title "comprehensive school" to two schools miles apart. I hope that he will be more ruthless than in the past in rejecting this latter kind of system.

It should be generally admitted that administrative mistakes were made by the local authority and by the Department over Enfield and that there was a genuine fear among parents there, in the beginning, about the scheme. What appals me is the ruthless and callous way in which those fears were seized upon by a political party, the Conservative Party, to take mean political advantage. The whole matter degenerated into a puppet show, with Enfield parents used as the puppets, a former Conservative candidate pulling the strings, the whole show directed by the Conservative Central Office and, I suspect, produced by a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

This is proved by the fact that, without even consulting parents, this ex-Conservative candidate sent a message of good wishes on behalf of Enfield parents to a Conservative candidate in the Walthamstow, West by-election. Many Enfield parents have told me since how disgusted they became with the whole business when they realised that they were being used for political purposes.

I believe very much in the polytechnic system, but I appeal for the closest possible consultation between the local education authority and the various constituent elements of the new polytechnic. In one case in London, which the right hon. Member for Handsworth mentioned, consultation between the three constituent elements has not taken place, since the staff of one have not been consulted at all. The student opinion in the constituent elements should be consulted as well as the staff.

On teacher supply, I am glad that my right hon. Friend referred to the increase in the supply of mature students, because I devoted part of my maiden speech to that topic. There is still a greater potential than has even yet been tapped and I should like to see an even greater number of mature students entering our schools. I would ask the Government to institute an inquiry into the grants system affecting mature students. I have some evidence that certain elements in the system react against a married mature student with family responsibilities, particularly that which reduces his wife's allowance if she earns more than £100. The grant system in this respect could do with a searching inquiry.

I agree with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Handsworth for an inquiry into teacher training, but it should be a very wide one. It should not entail simply examining the curricula in colleges of education, but should be an inquiry into the whole concept of teacher training, and of what we mean by a trained teacher. This might not be possible at the moment, since the colleges of education and the university departments of education are doing a magnificent job under heavy pressure, but it is necessary as soon as it is possible.

What appals me is the narrowness of the present system. Straight from school either to a college of education or to a university and straight back to school again. My experience of young teachers, men and women, entering the profession, is that they have not had the experience of life which they should have had before beginning to teach. Many, in fact, have no conception of the backgrounds of many of their prospective pupils. Thus, they often find it difficult to deal with the social problems of children, related to family background, particularly in deprived areas.

Those hon. Members opposite today, with a keen interest in education, should remember that it is no help to come to the Chamber and advocate the cause of education and then return to their constituencies to make violent speeches calling for drastic cuts in Government expenditure. From bitter experience, we all know that, if any Government embark on drastic cuts, education is one of the first casualties. I make this final plea to my Government and to the Secretary of State: I hope that he will resist any such pressure, from whatever source it may come.

Before turning to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), I would add to the chorus of welcome to the right hon. Gentleman and the two Ministers of State, who are all now on the Front Bench. Perhaps they will give a message of good will to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) who, until recently, held one of the important posts in the Department and always, in successive debates, put forward inadequate policies with great charm; no one could have done it with more ability. We wish him good fortune in the more turbulent waters of the Foreign Office.

I hope that the two hon. Ladies will understand if we find some difficulty in identifying them in a Parliamentary way without using their names. It will also come as no surprise to them, I think, to know that, in a personally affectionate if politically questioning way, they have attained the nicknames of "chicken and ham", bearing the names which they do.

This discussion of comprehensive and anti-comprehensive principles, as if there were some kind of deeply-seated political issue, is totally unrealistic and it is important to nail it, since between us we may do very great disservice to the cause of education. After all, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test said fairly and properly and with great experience and knowledge that, within a large number of comprehensive schools, there is some form or other of selection. Is not this one of the fields where both sides need an element of humility to understand that they do not know all the answers?

One of the trends coming out of some comprehensive schools and one of the lessons beginning to be drawn from some is that streaming within a comprehensive school is actually more socially divisive than if it is done outside. I do not regard this as a swingeing criticism of the principle, or I would not be basically in favour of it, but it is a legitimate plea for a quality which is very difficult in politicians—to assume that one does not know all the answers.

Since the hon. Gentleman drew very movingly on personal experience, I should like to draw on my own although, alas, I have nothing like his intelligence to be a teacher. But I am the chairman of a school directly affected by reorganisation in South London and, by inference, referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It is one of those which under the Chataway plan is to be left because of lack of finance, at least until after 1975.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any concept of the hours we had to spend last year—staff, administrators and governors—in discussing every conceivable type of plan for the future of that school which could not conceivably be carried out for 10, 15 or 20 years can he imagine the disruption in staff, the feeling of uncertainty and anxiety among parents? At one stage we were to be brigaded, with three different schools each a mile apart in busy areas of South London. I was determined that we should apply our minds to the proposals under the former local education authority, on strictly educational grounds. The whole board of governors agreed with me, and we totally defeated the proposal.

We were then moved on to a five-form entry, single-sex comprehensive school. It is very arguable whether a single-sex, five-form entry comprehensive school makes educational sense. If the hon. Gentleman asks for a certain reasonableness from us, which is not an unreasonable request, he must underline, as he fairly did in his speech, that it also requires from the Secretary of State a certain reasonableness in approaching these matters. If ever there was a lesson for the Secretary of State today it is that growing regional feeling throughout the country, and not only in the fringes, is a fact of modern life. It is felt just as deeply in some places that are not identified as regions, and as politicians we shall have to live with this new factor.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants, there can be a head-on collision in the comparatively small number of cases involved. But I am very hopeful that statesmanship will prevail, and that he will see how wise it will be—particularly in the London case, though perhaps not in every conceivable detail—to grant it very nearly completely.

I should like to deal with two detailed but vitally important matters in higher education which are directly the concern of the hon. Lady the Minister of State. I refer, first, to the problem of accommodation, which is increasing. The Robbins Report had in mind the provision of accommodation for two-thirds of the additional students that the Committee envisaged. That was plainly too optimistic. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be misled by the apparent success in finding accommodation at the present time. London University, which has at least as great a problem as any, always runs an advertising campaign for students' accommodation between June and October. That campaign was exactly the same this year as last, but this year it produced 20 times the offers of accommodation.

I discussed this with the lodgings officer of London University, and anyone who knows her and her staff will know that no student could have a more sympathetic friend. I was advised that the reason for the increased accommodation was the present economic conditions —the "squeeze". There is a direct relevance between "squeeze" conditions and the amount of accommodation on offer. This could be shown up and down the country, and therefore I beg the hon. Lady not to be misled into thinking that the situation is satisfactory merely because there is considerable accommodation on offer in 1967.

There are 134 institutions of further and higher education in central London, all competing for accommodation, and the problem is repeated in innumerable great cities and towns. There is a growing feeling that as a result of this difficulty and financial pressures the Government will fall back on a deliberate policy of the commuting student, that as a deliberate policy we shall seek to use a university substantially for the student who lives in the town, city or immediate area in which it is situated.

There is a powerful argument that 40 per cent. of students in Scotland are of that kind. But it would be a very sad day if, as a deliberate policy, we denied students the wider benefit of education in the broadest sense, part of which comes from moving to a different environment and different part of the country for one's university course. It would be helpful to know some of the hon. Lady's thinking on this and on the new schemes in the academic world for providing accommodation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology's constituency is close to the distinguished University of Lancaster, where I had a happy meeting with him not long ago. Lancaster is doing some very interesting work in providing student accommodation from private finance. I hope that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman will not allow any prejudice they may have—I hope that neither of them has it—against private finance to prevail, or any kind of restriction on the private finance provision.

One of the facts of modern life is that there are substantial funds looking for satisfactory places of investment. That is one of the reasons why the stock market is maintaining its very high prices at present. Any kind of investment involving young people often has attractive commercial possibilities, and here is a possibility of partnership between private finance and the State.

I ask for rather more sympathetic understanding than has sometimes been given to the current campaign in student circles for simpler standards. I have noticed among older people a curling of the lips, as though it were something to be shrugged off. But it is a remarkable fact about a much-criticised generation that it should be seriously doing research and work into more modest standards and ways of cutting costs at an age when many of them might be expected not to have such a responsible outlook on life.

Secondly, I wish to deal with a difficult matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle). There was the article in "Trends in Education". The signs are clear. The Government are considering very carefully a loan in whole or in part for grants. First, I quarrel strongly with the terminology. The word "loan" gives a false impression of what we are doing. What is proposed is a charge on the student for the whole or part of his higher education, and the fact that it is financed temporarily by loan is an important but subsidiary issue. We are discussing the transfer from the state to the individual student of the cost of the whole or part of his higher education. Let us call it what it is.

For the purpose of my argument I assume that a decision has been made, or would be made, on whether the charge should be limited to maintenance, in which case we are talking about a loan of about £1,000, or will include tuition fees, in which case we are talking in terms of about £2,500.

I assume that repayments would be made on the Professor Prest principle, by P.A.Y.E. repayments. I urge the Minister to consider closely that any repayment of charges scheme must have substantial numbers of exceptions. We always take ladies first, bless them, and in this sense they are not unimportant. A quarter of the student population of England and Wales and a third of that of Scotland is female. We live in an age in which early matrimony is the rule rather than the exception.

I assume that we would not require a student charge to be repaid by a lady out of any money except that which she had earned, and since large numbers of women either do not immediately take up paid employment or only keep it for a short time—or because the present rates of remuneration do not provide a substantial wage—there would be a large number of exceptions among women students.

The second major exception would be overseas students, who represent about 11 per cent. of our student population. It is obvious that the amount of repayment of student charge which one could obtain from an overseas student would be strictly limited. The third exception would be the British student who goes abroad. Any student who is required to pay a charge must have the certainty that the charge is being effectively obtained from his colleagues. If not, equity would not be present. Once a student moves out of the jurisdiction, the practical difficulties of obtaining repayment are substantial.

There are then the self-employed. A large number of graduates would be in this category and, therefore, no P.A.Y.E. proposal would exist for them. The Minister cannot overlook the many graduates earning such small salaries that the House would not consider it reasonable to make a charge for repayment. I am thinking particularly of the clergy.

The Minister would find, if she tried to introduce a repayment of charges scheme cloaked by the word "loan" for undergraduates that she would be lucky to get back two-thirds in total of the money originally lent. I beg her also to realise that what she may be suggesting is a long-term repayment. It is often argued that if we introduced a system of charges now the Exchequer would benefit now. Obviously, Parliament would never countenance the repayment of £1,000 or £2,500, according to the decision, immediately upon graduation or other than over a reasonable period of time. If one allowed, say, 10 years for repayment—a not unreasonable period—it would mean that any loans made now would take 15 years to repay. The result would be that the Exchequer would be waiting for a long time for its money. Loans made now would not be repaid until 1980. On strictly practical grounds, I urge a close look at this suggestion, which I realise is being floated. At least, on the Floor of the House a highly critical look has not been given to such a scheme.

I therefore re-echo what was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth. I feel deeply certain that the effect of a charges scheme—and I am talking of first degree courses—cloaked by loans, would be a substantial disincentive to the very group of people whom increasingly we are bringing into the realm of higher education.

One need only think of the psychology of many of the homes from which the people concerned come to know that the fathers would simply not permit their children, particularly their daughters, to take on a loan of £1,000 to £2,500, and this seems a retrograde way of going about our financing of higher education. It would also be directly contrary to what the Americans are doing, because since 1966 they have moved into the realm of grants rather than loans.

I have concentrated on the two detailed matters of the housing of students and grants given to students. I hope that this debate may have come in time, particularly on the second matter, to ensure that more thought is given in the Department before any such scheme is implemented.

I listened with interest to much of what was said by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). As a former vice-president of the National Union of Students and as the representative of a constituency which contains a large number of students. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had many discussions on this subject and that I, too, have been impressed by the helpful attitude of today's students, who are anxiously seeking solutions to the problems about which he spoke. They are concerned with self-help, housing co-operatives and other interesting ideas. I hope that Parliament will return to this subject in greater detail on other occasions.

I wish to concentrate on the subject of the British Museum. I welcome the public controversy which has been aroused by my right hon. Friend's statement last week. The controversy is indicative of a degree of interest which should be cherished. We should be glad that people care, one way or the other, about what happens to the Museum and the National Library.

It would, however, be an absolute disaster if this controversy became politically polarised. I have been scrupulous never to use this controversy in a party political way. It will be recalled that during the public inquiry the Holborn Borough Council, which was then Tory dominated, put forward substantial objections. The Holborn Chamber of Commerce—not distinguished for its support of the Labour Party—was another substantial objector. Mine is not a constituency which is shy of political controversy, but we have never found it necessary to bring party politics—to have one party abusing another—into this question.

Does the hon. Lady consider that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in another place will ensure that this matter does not become too politically polarised? I do not think that any hon. Member here has been so outspoken on the issue.

We will not serve the interests of the Museum or of scholarship if we conduct this argument in the way of which I thought a tendency existed earlier today; that is, largely in terms of an attack on my right hon. Friend who, in my view, should be congratulated for at last having made a decision in this matter.

Reference has been made to 20 wasted years of planning and thought. I would say that we have had 20 years of non-effective planning. We must accept that it is always more difficult in public affairs to take a decision at the end which should have been taken at the beginning. Like an over-long engagement, it is sometimes better broken off than continued into an unsuccessful and unhappy marriage. I congratulate my right hon. Friend as well as the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has also had to consider these difficult problems.

It is an unbearable hyprocrisy for hon. Members opposite this morning to appear as the sudden friends of the British Museum and sudden lovers of books. The recent report of the British Museum trustees is an indictment of successive Governments. It is certainly no comfort to any Government over a long period of years. We have heard this morning a great deal about the needs of the Museum, particularly in terms of a new library, but one has only to go to that great institution and look at the conditions of work of the staff, at the overcrowding, at the number of beautiful things stacked away in cellars because there is no room for display, to realise that successive Governments have starved the Museum of the sort of resources and help that are needed.

The trustees are now working on an agreed 10-year plan of modest works and improvements to take place within the present building, involving no disturbance of population or difficulties of that kind. But even that modest plan, which will include such necessities as decent restaurant facilities for the public and the staff, is falling behind the 10-year programme. I very much hope that both sides of the House will agree that the Museum's present difficulties can to a large extent be alleviated, and that a new National Library is not the only way in which the Museum can be helped and its facilities improved. I would remind hon. Members that in the last century Parliament passed an Act enabling the Museum to buy some land adjoining the present building, yet much of that land has still not been used. It is really a challenge to us now to look at ways of improving the Museum, other than by the building of the projected National Library, which has been considered far too much in isolation.

The Camden Council, which is at present Socialist-controlled, earlier this year passed a resolution unanimously which it sent to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Again, there was no question of party division in the council on the matter, and this carries on the tradition that has been established for years. I took a petition to the Minister of Housing and Local Government signed by over 500 people living in the area. I did not ask them about their political allegiance, but this is an area in which at election times I do not always find a plentitude of Labour voters. We should continue to argue on the merits of the case, and not in terms of party attack or abuse.

It is impossible to look at the scheme in isolation. This is a part of London in which enormous inroads have been made for educational and institutional building. Some of the student hostels that have been referred to in this debate are built in this area. There have been extensions to the great teaching hospitals and, unfortunately, far too many new office blocks.

It is most unfair that members of local authorities should be represented as a lot of Phillistines or Vandals—or even Visigoths. We have a lot of books in our constituency. In fact, I guarantee to the House that here we have more books per square yard than any other constituency. We have the great National Central Library in Store Street, containing 350,00 books—just round the corner from the British Museum. We have the great libraries of London University, of the School of Oriental Studies and of the School of Slavonic Studies.

I could take a long time telling hon. Members about the number of books we have in Bloomsbury, and I am tempted to do so because I must refute the underlying suggestion of a lot of illiterate vote-catching local fathers who are insensitive to national needs. In this part of London we have probably a greater proportion of national institutions of law, medicine and learning generally than anywhere else.

But one does not need to look at the problem just from the constituency point of view. I was always against this plan on grounds of town planning in a wider sense. It is not only the people who live in the area who are affected, but those who come to central London, who work there, or who pass by. We have suffered far too much in the heart of our City—as have other cities—from the deadening effect of depopulation, and the overbuilding of institutions, be they learned or commercial.

My heart sank when I looked at the Martin Plan, and I am so happy to feel, or to hope, that it will never be put into effect. It was quite impracticable from the traffic point of view. It mainly consisted of a draughty great yard—and I must insist that a draughty great yard does not cease to be a draughty great yard because someone calls it a piazza. This use of foreign terminology never fails to make me suspicious, because I always feel that those resorting to it do so because they do not want the rest of us to know what they mean and what we are letting ourselves in for.

It has been said that the effect of the plan would have been to have opened up a better vista of Hawksmoor's delightful church of St. George. In fact, to me the most impressive feature of that church, of which I am very fond, is the colonnade. The plan would do nothing for that, but instead would open up the quite inconspicuous behind of the church, which would then have been seen in a vast space, out of all proportion, and thus do little good to the memory of Hawskmoor or give pleasure to those passing by.

I hope that this whole area, which has become seedy and run down because of uncertainty on the part of the people there, may be designated under the Civic Amenities Act and some really constructive use made of the opportunity, not just to keep the area as it is, but to develop and improve the best that exists there. That would include keeping as much as possible of the property in public ownership. Some of it has already been acquired by the Government. when the intention was to build this library, and I hope that in deciding what to do with the areas so acquired, local authorities will be consulted and every aspect explored which will enable public ownership to play a large part.

I have never understood why there should be an absolute virtue in having all the Museum objects and the library on the same site. No one in Paris complains about having to walk from the Louvre to the Bibliothèque Nationale. As far as I know, nobody complains very much if, reading books in the British Museum on the history of art, they have to go to the Tate or the National Gallery to look at the pictures.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to "the whole conspectus of our culture" being in the same place. That is the sort of phrase which people are expected to believe if it is repeated often enough, but it is quite meaningless to suggest that there is any disadvantage to scholarship in not having the artefacts of study in the same geographical place as the books that one wishes to read. It conjures up a ghastly picture of the most vast agglomeration of libraries, picture galleries, geological and other muesums all in one place, and I am sure that no one would want that.

What we have very seriously to consider is the whole future of our national library system. This would go far beyond today's debate. It must be emphasised that our library system at present has no apex to it. This is one of the things which the Parry Committee's Report makes absolutely clear. We are building up a number of very fine libraries in different parts of the country under different auspices. At this point of time my right hon. Friend is absolutely right in wanting to stop and look at the whole picture, including of course the National Library of Science and Invention and other special libraries.

The British Museum, of course, has the duty under the Copyright Act to retain copies of every book published in this country. This creates great difficulties. It uses one mile and a half of shelving every year in carrying out this one function. This means when a site is being looked for that this ever-increasing demand on space has to be borne in mind unless there is to be some completely different thinking about how the two aspects of scholarship and book storage are to be dealt with.

Perhaps separation is the answer. I do not know. I think it very right that experts are being asked to look at this very difficult question. I should like to see the recommendation of the Parry Committee carried out. It set out very fully its vision of the function of a national library and pointed out clearly in paragraph 324:

"Many of these functions of a national library are either not undertaken by any library in Britain or are insufficiently dealt with."

In paragraph 323 the Report says:

"It seems to us desirable that there should be better provision for co-ordinating the work of major libraries of all kinds."

We have an opportunity to do that now. I am sure that it is an opportunity that will be taken.

What we need now is not an argument about the past, about past decisions, right or wrong, between the parties in this House. We need, and the British Museum needs, a meeting of minds in which we shall together try to work out how we can ensure that the national library serves not only the needs of the twentieth century—I should like to think the needs of the twenty-first century—but will be the best, the finest, the greatest national library in the world. I think the decision of my right hon. Friend has made that more possible.

I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, will refer to the problem of the British Museum, so I shall not deal with the points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). I want instead to devote most of my time to some problems surrounding the proposals for raising the school-leaving age to which the Minister has referred.

Before doing so, I revert for a moment to a point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) in regard to secondary education. In the course of an interesting speech, he gave the Secretary of State two pieces of advice. One was that he should not be afraid to reject educationally unsound schemes. I heartily endorse that piece of advice. Whatever the nature of the schemes may be, whether they are comprehensive or unrevised schemes, it is surely right to insist that what we are concerned with is educationally sound schemes. There is not a single model which conveniently fits all the differing circumstances and resources available in one part of the country or another. The sooner all of us who discuss this subject in this House and educational authorities throughout the country understand that, the quicker shall we arrive at satisfactory conclusions to meet the needs of parents and children in those areas.

The second piece of advice which the hon. Member gave to his right hon. Friend was that he should be willing to take legislative powers to deal with the rump of problems left to him. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reject that piece of advice. I say this because I think it grossly underestimates the progress which has been made and is being made by local authorities to try to arrive at the sort of solutions to the problems which we desire. There is a great deal of disenchantment in the country with any tendency to excessive centralisation of decision-making if that can be avoided. One does not have to look across the Border as far as Hamilton to realise that. It is there in many parts of England as well as Wales and Scotland. I urge the Secretary of State to rely much more on consultation, persuasion and discussion with local authorities to arrive at solutions to problems rather than to seek more arbitrary methods.

I turn to the problem which I said I wished to mention, that of the raising of the school-leaving age. We are now almost exactly half way between the time when my right hon. Friends took the decision to make the announcement of the raising of the age and the date when it is to come into effect; there are about three years to go. We know of the reasons for that decision and I certainly do not dissent from them. When one looks at the variations in voluntarily staying on at school between one part of the country and another, one finds 27 per cent. of voluntarily staying-on in the North and 56 per cent. in the South-East. One becomes aware of the differences which exist and of the need for progress in many counties. One is also aware of the effects of this on industrial development, particularly in the more hardly hit areas, and one needs to be reminded of the need for skilled labour at this moment, even in areas of high unemployment.

Both the Crowther and the Newsom Reports commented on the wastage of talent which was going on through too early leaving of school by many children. I accept completely the desirability of trying to get this reform through. The problem, however, that is causing concern to teachers, L.E.As. and many others is just how we are to succeed in getting this done, what is going to be taught in what type of schools, how shall we raise the money, and so on.

I take three or four examples which give cause for anxiety. There is the teacher supply problem. I think it is fairly generally agreed that this is likely to involve an increased demand for teachers of something like 20,000, which should be added to the existing need of about 80,000 to bring classes down to size. When we compare those figures with the annual increase rate of 8,000, which admittedly is better than it has been recently, we get some evidence of size of the problem with which we are faced.

Secondly, I consider buildings. There will be 350,000 extra children in the schools in 1971. Thirdly, £100 million has been allocated over the next three-year building programmes for this purpose, but I have seen a comment that there is some danger of these instalments running a little behind schedule. One has to add the increased current costs, the running costs of schools taken at the rate of £135 per secondary place, which will amount to about £50 million extra costs.

The next and perhaps most important of all is the curriculum. A great deal of useful work is being done by the Schools Council. We must ask, not how useful is this work, but how widely is it being disseminated and how quickly is it getting through to the schools.

I shall now revert in more detail to some of these points. I emphasise on all these points the urgency of the problem now facing the Secretary of State if this transition is to go through smoothly. The teachers who went to the training colleges this autumn will have to cope with this problem. If plans for the curriculum and on how to cope with the problem are not yet at an advanced stage, time is being wasted. The teachers leaving the training colleges in three years' time will badly miss some of the advice on this difficult problem that many people are trying to prepare for them now. The pattern of career for those now going into the training colleges is: school, college of education, back to school again. They will be coping with a number of children whose wish—this is the nub of the problem—was not to remain in school but to get out to a type of work with which these teachers have not been in contact.

I place emphasis here on the importance of the recruitment of mature students. There has been some progress, but I believe that the additional recruitment of mature students will be very important in helping to cope with this problem. The experience which such students have had outside schools can greatly help inside schools if more of them can be attracted. Progress has been made in recruiting them, but I believe that we are only scratching the surface of the problem.

There are two ways in which a greater number of mature students could be attracted into teaching. First, greater progress in solving the problems of the transferability of pensions would immeasurably help in the recruitment of mature people. This is one of the points mentioned in the "brain drain" report. Secondly, consideration should be given to the question of the different treatment accorded by Burnham to those who obtain graduate qualifications as against those who obtain qualifications from the professional institutions. A qualification in a scientific subject obtained at the Royal Institute of Chemistry, which is generally agreed to be of an equivalent standard to degrees granted by universities and which is so recognised by most employers and other bodies, is not so recognised by Burnham. This cannot be helpful in promoting the recruitment of mature students.

I have referred to the allocation of the £100 million for the building programme. I will make one point here which especially concerns my own county. The allocation is based on the assumption that present secondary school accommodation is adequate for those who are voluntarily staying on now. Anyone who visits schools in Kent, where we have a high voluntary staying-on rate—one or two members of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, including his Minister of State, have been good enough to visit Kent—will know that this is not so. Unless one can take account of these on top of those who will come in when the regulations are changed, the overcrowding will persist and will be very serious.

Curriculum changes take time to develop. The foreword to Working Paper No. 2 of the Schools Council states:

"The aim is to reach a peak of activity, involving as many schools as possible by the beginning of the 1967–68 school year."

That time has now come. The House, local education authorities, and teaching organisations ought to know just how high that peak now is. How many schools are now involved in research projects and in experiments about the curriculum with a view to dealing with 1971, because there is no time to waste?

The gist of what I want to say to the Secretary of State is that there is a need, both now and at regular intervals from now onwards, for a very detailed, regular and public review of the progress which is being made with the preparations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. There is a need for a critical path analysis stage by stage of what needs to be done, otherwise we shall fall flat on our faces; there will be a growing public outcry against the decision; and, should that mount too high and should the problems of finance, teaching and curriculum become too great, 1971's dateline will be missed and the problems will be infinitely greater as the numbers in secondary schools rise again thereafter.

I agreed with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), particularly his comments on the problems consequent upon the raising of the school-leaving age. I hope that he will forgive me if I concentrate mainly on the question of the reorganisation of secondary education.

I welcome the passage in the Gracious Speech affirming the Government's intention to assist in

"the development of comprehensive secondary education."

In my maiden speech, which I made on another Gracious Speech, I concentrated on this subject. I applauded the then Secretary of State, who had made it crystal clear that the Government's intention was to end once and for all selection at 11-plus and to achieve the complete reorganisation of secondary education.

In spite of the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I am still a little apprehensive and rather disappointed with the rate of progress which has been made. I am an impatient person. Before I came to the House I was engaged in teaching. One of the things that one learns quickly is that time is not on our side. Every generation of children that leaves school and that has not the benefit of comprehensive secondary education is lost and can never be regained.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the number of local authorities which are dragging their feet in one way or another. There are those which are submitting schemes which they know full well do not measure up to the guide lines laid down by the Department. There are those which, with their hands on their hearts, proclaim their agreement in prin- ciple with comprehensive secondary reorganisation, provided that we do nothing about it. My own authority is similar to that.

As an aside, may I ask my right hon. Friend when the scheme which has been submitted by the Redbridge Borough Council will be examined and when we shall get some sort of pronouncement by his Department? The parents at Redbridge are just as anxious as parents elsewhere to know what the future will be. There is a curious idea among many Tory councillors that there can be some sort of a mixed economy in education, a sort of existence side by side of grammar schools based on selection in competition with comprehensive schools. This is a complete nonsense, and it can only deny to the comprehensive school the broad intake which is necessary to justify its existence. Without such a broad intake, obviously the comprehensive school is simply the old modern school writ large.

During the debate some apprehension has been expressed at the instrusion of the political element into the whole question of secondary reorganisation. Unhappily, during the last few years, this matter of political instrusion has become wider and wider, and there is a tendency on the part of the party opposite to take up a stand. I know that there have been expressions of agreement in principle, as I said before, and I must admit that a number of hon. Members opposite and a number of local Conservative councillors in different parts of the country are generally agreed on the necessity for and the advantage of the comprehensive system. Nevertheless, while these reactionary councils are draging their feet the damage is being done.

Reference has been made to the Enfield authority and the controversy which has taken place there. I do not know how most hon. Members regard this episode, but I look on it as simply a sordid conspiracy of highly motivated people who are determined in one way or another to hold back as hard as they possibly can the implementation of reorganisation in Enfield. What have they done? What has been the result of the stand that they have taken so far?

First of all, they have held back for something like a term—and I hope it will be no longer than one term—the education of some hundreds of people who are now on the threshold of their secondary careers. They have imposed a financial burden on the ratepayers of Enfield. I do not know whether they will accept a good deal of credit for that. I will give them every credit, however, for being able to read the small print in the Act, though this hardly does credit to the Department's legal advisers who advised the Minister and the local authority.

Perhaps in the Enfield affair there is one hopeful result, namely—this is in passing and does not in any way impinge on the educational aspect of this problem—that it gives some hope to many laymen who up to now have regarded the law as being a laggard. It is interesting to note that it is possible at very short notice to enlist the services of a learned judge on a Saturday morning. It is well to know that this small group does not in any way represent the great majority of the parents of Enfield, and certainly not of the teachers. As I have said before, time is not on the side of the children.

I was rather impressed by the speech the other day by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, who insisted that everything should be done to tap the enormous reservoir of talent within our people. Far too much of this is being wasted. I should like, as other Members have done, to quote my own experience. I recently visited the school in which I taught before coming to this august House and I was presented there with the results of the G.C.E. examination in which for the first time this secondary modern school had taken the Advanced level, although only three pupils took advantage of this possibility. The results were remarkable. They would have done credit to any grammar school. As a result of this examination, one girl was found a place a university; another was accepted at a teachers' training college; and a third was highly placed in industry.

What I am trying to show is not that these things are possible in our secondary modern schools. They are being done in every part of the country, and great credit is due to those teachers who are doing even more than is generally required of them in order to achieve these results. What I am trying to show is that for all these who take advantage of the possibilities, there are so many who slip by. I know from my own experience in that school that many children who were well qualified to go further have unfortunately left before their time. As I said before, the country cannot afford to wait.

I should like to pose this question to my right hon. Friend. Mention has been made of legislation. Is this legislation to apply to these laggard councils? Here I reiterate the request, or perhaps the demand, by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell). Are we to have a clear pronouncement that from such and such a day—the earlier the better—selection to the secondary school is to cease?

The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Arnold Shaw) said that time was not on our side. It certainly is not on my side. I hope to refer to some of the things he said, because, naturally, I shall wish to refer to Enfield in the few minutes left to me.

First, however, I should like to go outside the subject of this debate and follow up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), when we "went overseas" for a short while. He referred to what happened in Switzerland last weekend and quoted from today's Daily Mirror. I recommend the whole of that article in the Daily Mirror to hon. Members opposite. It is extremely pertinent to the current discussion. I take him up, also, on what he said about the late Lord Attlee. It is not true that Lord Attlee would never have held an unattributable meeting. I attended some of that kind which he did hold, is his Ministers did. But what Lord Attlee would never have done is to allow his Ministers to hold them and thereafter come to the House and deny that they had been held.

I turn now to the subject of this morning's debate. It is nearly six months since I had the privilege of initiating an Adjournment debate on the subject of the reorganisation of secondary education in the London Borough of Enfield. At that time, it seemed to be mainly a constituency or borough problem, worthy of an Adjournment debate but little more. In the months since, however, the name of Enfield has become widely known throughout the country for the tremendous work which the parents and teachers have done in the interests of the children of the borough. The phrase in the Gracious Speech that

"Further progress will be made in the development of comprehensive secondary education"

might well have been improved by the addition of the three words, "by legal methods".

In this connection, I say to the Minister who has now joined the Department's team that, while I shall enjoy debating matters later with her, she is one of those who were largely responsible for all the trouble, because she took a leading part in passing the London Government Act through the House. If we had not had the consequences of that Act this year, none of the problems would have arisen, because the electors themselves would have had the right to say what sort of scheme they thought right for our borough.

The new Secretary of State referred, as I thought he would, to Mr. Harold Smith, almost as though he was rather clever in having discovered him. He read out Mr. Smith's letter, which was similar to one published in the local paper a week or two ago. What is extraordinary is not that Mr. Smith should have appeared on the scene but that he has appeared only now, 18 months after the teachers and parents of the area began to complain. It has taken all this time for Mr. Smith, who is a member of the party opposite, to gather up some names and support against the early formed parents' association.

With respect, it is nonsense to say, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South did in passing, that the majority of parents and teachers are in favour of the Enfield scheme. That is quite untrue. Ever since the time when I first presented a Petition to the House, there has been an overwhelming majority in favour of attacking the scheme as much as possible. Why? Because it is a bad scheme. There are those who are against the ending of selection—I am one of them—but there are many more who are against changing it for a thoroughly bad scheme; yet that is what we have in the borough, one of the worst schemes in any part of the country.

Here are one or two aspects of it. The hon. Lady who was then, as now, one of the Ministers of State at the Department, took part in the Adjournment debate last May to which I have referred. She spoke of two schools which are separated by a road, and, no doubt, intending what she said to be accurate, used these words:

"I now want to say a word about … the Edmonton/Rowantree combination, in respect of which there was the largest number of objections under Section 13. These objections centred on the danger to children caused by the fact that a road cut between the two schools."

She might have mentioned that the road is the A10, the Great Cambridge Road.

The hon. Lady continued:

"We have made inquiries from the authority and from the police, and it is our understanding that there wil be no movement of pupils between sessions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1958–9.]

That is not right. The latest count is that pupils are doing 950 journeys a week between the two schools on either side of the Great Cambridge Road. The teachers themselves are doing 215, quite apart from what the headmaster and heads of departments have to do, and these journeys are taking anything between 12 and 20 minutes. I do not say that there is any danger to children from crossing the road. There is not, because they now go by coaches, and the staff go by taxi or, if they have their own cars, they are allowed a mileage allowance, which all adds to the cost to the ratepayers. Many of the teachers are having to break into their free periods in order to cross over from one school to the other, or, if they have to cross at other times, they either leave one class early or they arrive at another late.

What is needed, therefore, even to make this bad scheme any better, is more teachers—at least seven for this school. There is another school in the borough in which girls work at one school for two days a week and at another for three days. In another school physics and chemistry are being taught together. All these difficulties, point to a bad scheme, aggravated by a shortage of teachers.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted the phrase in the Gracious Speech:

"My Ministers will continue to accord high priority to the supply of teachers."

They have done that ever since this Government came in. In October, 1964, we were told:

"My Ministers will give particular priority to increasing the supply of teachers."

In November 1965, the phrase was:

"My Government will take steps to provide more teachers".

In April, 1966:

"Further steps will be taken to increase the supply of teachers".

Now, we have "high priority".

What happened? What did the former Secretary of State say in January last year? He sent an order to local authorities to reduce their quotas for January, 1968 by 1½ per cent., and this at a time when more teachers are needed, not fewer, and during a year when in the Borough of Enfield 44 per cent. more teachers have left as a result of the scheme than in the previous year.

I wanted to refer to the Plowden Report, but there is no time. I welcome the interest which the Government are showing in it. I hope that it can be implemented soon, or at least a large part of it, though I must repeat the warning that my distinguished constituent Sir Ronald Gould gave:

"We must utter a warning that the Report's proposals will be 'pie in the sky' unless the Government provide greater resources for primary education."

That is what is really needed. But what is needed in addition is a fresh look at the whole question. I warned Ministers that the scheme would not work satisfactorily in my borough, and it certainly is not doing so. I have given a few examples of the difficulties.

I strongly support the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) when he urges that, when a scheme is a bad one, it should not be put forward. I ask hon. Members opposite to concentrate on that warning. It is most important. The pupils in my borough are suffering, and they will suffer, from a bad scheme put through in the way it has been against the wishes of the parents and the teachers.

I shall say a few words about Enfield, too. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend has decided to introduce legislation to clear up some of the muddles which have been caused by the legal decisions taken in the past few weeks. The Opposition Front Bench—this applies particularly to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—ought not to jump on to the Enfield bandwagon too smartly. It was they who began the distinction in the Ministry between schemes which needed the issue of Section 13 notices and those which did not. This was one of the matters which the judgment upset. I am glad that it is to be cleared up.

When it is said that the Enfield scheme is a bad one, what is really meant is that, in the Enfield context, it is difficult to abolish selection. The reason why it is difficult is that all the way through the 1940s and 1950s the secondary schools which were built were small. Even the new ones were small schools not big enough to become comprehensive schools. In retrospect, this is the great charge against the right hon. Member for Hands-worth and what he did in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

I grant that he got more money than ever before for secondary education, but it was put into small non-viable secondary school units, sometimes miles apart one from another, when anyone with a little more vision could have seen that comprehensive education was soon coming. This was obvious at that time, and the right hon. Gentleman should have exercised far more power from the Ministry to ensure that those secondary school units were built large enough so that the transition to comprehensive education would not have had the many growing pains which it has had.

I will not say more than that, because I have little time and I want to talk about the priority area concept of the Plowden Report. Here we are in danger of fallng into the trap of thinking that simply by putting £16 million into new building up and down the country we solve the problem. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's predecessor as Secretary of State for getting this money out of the Treasury, because in the context in which he got it, it was a magnificent achievement.

But I have returned from a month in the United States, looking at this problem in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and I am more and more convinced that putting money into building is the least important of all the ways which are open to us in combating the poverty and the difficulties of these areas. It is important, but the equipment of the school is just as important—and I want to hear what is being done about that—and even more important are the teachers in the schools.

I am sorry that my union, the National Union of Teachers, has not been willing to co-operate in the exact Plowden proposals of paying an extra £100 to all teachers in these schools. We have some money out of the latest Burnham settlement, but until we can combat the appalling turnover of staff in the depressed schools, then, however new the buildings and however good the equipment, nothing will be done to solve the problem of the children in the schools.

Another essential point in which the Plowden Report refused completely to face the issues concerned parental choice. Plowden said in the first chapter that it was very important to get parents interested, and with that we all agree. But Plowden went on to say that parental choice of school was very important. All the evidence of the United States shows that the more parental choice that is offered, the more class and colour segregated the schools become.

The right hon. Member for Hands-worth should know this better than anyone else, because in his constituency he has two primary schools, one of which is nearly 90 per cent. coloured and the other of which is nearly 90 per cent. white. The only reason that the schools are of that composition is that parents have an open option to send their children to one or the other. If we want to solve the problem of depressed schools in urban areas we cannot say, "Parental choice for everybody".

I live in the South-East of London. My daughter is 10 and she is about to go to a secondary school. I have been to a meeting at which I was offered a choice of 35 secondary schools for her to attend. She will go to a comprehensive school in Sydenham, I hope, if she gets in—although she may be not quite intelligent enough or not quite unintelligent enough to get there, as the position is difficult in the middle ranges. But the danger in this area of South-East London is that by giving parents a choice of, say, six schools, the result is one of class segregation, and that is something against which we must fight.

But the hon. Member does not quite meet the challenge which I put to him. I respect his sincerity. But how would he feel if he had a choice of only one school, and that comprehensive without a good pre-university course?

I should not feel happy about it. But from the experience which I have had of organising schools in the city when I was in Sheffield, I would say that we discovered that the right way to put sixth form courses into and to develop good sixth form courses in a depressed secondary school is to insist that certain parents send their children to that school. The way to lift up schools is to give them good children with parents who want the children to succeed. If one allows parents simply to opt out of a school system, as the Opposition benches by and large would allow them to opt out of the State school system, to that extent one depresses those schools.

These priority areas are a wonderful concept launched in the context of the Plowden Report, but the more one looks at this concept the more one sees that it should not be a purely educational one. It ought to include housing, clinics, and so on. If these are depressed areas which need bringing up, it is wrong that all the money that the Government have to devote to them should be put into schools. There is a rather naive idea in the country generally that one can solve all the social problems by education alone. All the social resources of the community in terms of social workers, health services, the housing service and so on need to be put into these areas if we are to save our cities from the fate to which the American cities have come.

In America, at last something is being done about this, but several riots a year in their cities were needed to force them to do so. I hope that we shall start putting money into these areas before we have our ghetto riots rather than afterwards.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) for sitting down and allowing me time to wind up the debate for the Opposition. It is the first time that I have ever taken part in an education debate. It is fortunate that the debate takes place on the Gracious Speech, because it has been rather disjointed. During the course of the debate we heard a speech by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) in which he referred to one of Her Majesty's Ministers as a donkey and talked of Her Majesty's foreign affairs as a sleazy business. I was surprised to hear that during a debate on education.

I enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), except for the sentence when he referred to the extraordinarily progressive and enlightened education authority at Southend as "backwoodsmen". I learnt much from the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I must emphasise the education authority in Southend is carrying out its duties in a way which is very much in the interests of the pupils there. It has a fine record.

I wish to concentrate on the British Museum. At once, I take up the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger). Of course it is not a party political matter. People of all parties have taken different views about it. The hon. Lady has only to look at the House of Lords OFFICIAL REPORT to see how people in all political parties joined in deploring the decision of the Secretary of State. I emphasise that this is certainly not a party political matter. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) took the same line as the hon. Lady when he represented her constituency. At the same time, it is precisely the sort of issue which it is the right and the duty of the Opposition to probe fully. Important matters arise from it, not only from the decision of the Secretary of State but from the manner in which the decision was made.

A great opportunity has been missed, probably for ever. For many years, as the Secretary of State said, the British Museum has been pressing for the implementation of the new library scheme. The hon. Lady referred to the conditions of the staff. I agree with her. The con- ditions and the increased facilities at the library in recent years alone make the provision of a large library urgent.

Two questions on the merits of the scheme have to be gone into. First, do we need a large comprehensive National Library? Secondary, if we do, where should it be sited? I understand that the Borough of Camden has made a number of objections to the original scheme to have the library on the Bloomsbury site. It feels that expert opinion is not now in favour of large comprehensive libraries. I do not believe this to be the case. In America work is going on at the mammoth new Congress Library, at a cost of about 75 million dollars, the Lenin Library in Moscow is spending vast sums of money, and further developments are taking place in Czechoslovakia, West Germany, and in France.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) said, the Parry Committee, which reported as recently as last July, made it clear in paragraph 334 that the British Museum should be a National Library. It went on to say:

"It is the opinion of the Committee that the range of functions suggested as appropriate to a national library could be fully carried out by the British Museum only when the new Library building is completed and the library departments reconstituted and housed as a unit."

I am surprised that in making this statement the Secretary of State prayed in aid the Parry Report for a decision which overturns this principle.

I now come to whether such a library should be next to the British Museum. I think it true to say that if we were starting this scheme afresh, and if there were no British Museum and no National Library, we might not build the two together, but this occasion presents a great opportunity to have on the same site something which would be unique in the world. We would have a great national library and a great national museum virtually under one roof. One distinguished scholar said about this scheme that we would be able to have under one roof man's written thoughts, his records, and his handiwork.

It would be equally unique if it were built next door to the Science Museum, or to any other museum. What the hon. Gentleman is saying about building it next door to the British Museum is not particularly true. It would be just as unique if it were next door to any other museum.

I have not heard any proposals from the right hon. Gentleman to build it next door to any other museum. The British Museum is responsible for the library. The latest report by the Parry Committee recommends that the national library should be at the British Museum. It has one of the finest collections of works in the world, and if the right hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the library should be next door to another museum, rather than the British Museum, I think that he is opening up the discussion in a ridiculous manner. It is impossible to split the library effectively, and I think that at the moment we have a chance of having side by side the finest library and museum in the world.

If the library is not to be next door to the British Museum, where is it to be? We had a partial assurance from the Secretary of State this morning, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to go one step further. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his view there was a strong case for having this library in Central London. I beg him to go further, or allow his Minister of State to do so, and assure us that there will be a National Library in Central London. If he gives us this assurance, it will be a tremendous relief to all those who are interested in this important matter. Everyone concerned will feel that a good day's work has been done, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will commit himself to this concept.

I appreciate that if the library is to be in Central London the problem will arise of exactly where it should be. A site of at least 5 acres will be required. At the moment the University of London and University College make great use of the library for graduate research. The Secretary of State's decision will involve these universities and the British Museum itself in a vast amount of extra expense to provide an adequate library to serve the various departments of the museum.

The Borough of Camden originally raised two other objections. It said, first, that in its opinion the library should be on the South Bank. That was more of an assertion than an argued case. That is a matter of opinion.

I remind the hon. Member that the previous Government agreed that at least the National Library of Science and Inventions should be on the South Bank. That is where the idea began.

I appreciate that, but I do not want to go into details of the National Library of Science and Inventions. Separate considerations apply there.

I suspect that the more serious objection by the borough is a housing objection. I understand that 900 people are likely to lose their houses if the scheme goes forward, of which, according to the Secretary of State, 350 could be rehoused on the site. According to him, that left 450 people in need of housing. Someone has his mathematics wrong; I do not know whether it is he or I. It is probably his example of new mathematics. According to my calculations the number of people left in need of housing is 550.

Everyone in the House has great sympathy with the Borough of Camden and any other local authority with the difficult housing problems of Central London, and no one knows better than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) about the difficulties that face Camden and other London boroughs. Serious consideration must be given to that point.

But the scheme would not come into fruition for nearly a decade, and I cannot believe that during that period it would be totally beyond the resources of the Greater London Council and Camden to provide a satisfactory alternative. This scheme is of national importance, and if the Government are to build 500,000 houses a year, as we are continually told, I cannot believe that a solution could not be found.

As for Bloomsbury Square, it used to be a very beautiful one, but not all its original beauty has been preserved. If the right hon. Gentleman is praying that in aid I should like to know what is to happen to it in future. We have not been told what will be the future of this site if the Government persist in their present intentions. We do not know whether the Ministry of Public Building and Works will return some of the properties to private owners or let some of them to people who gave up their houses previously. Has any consideration been given to the future of this site? We have a right to know what its future is to be if the Government persist in their scheme.

In my view—which, perhaps, is not important—but in the view of practically everyone in the country who has experience and learning in these matters, the Government's decision, which until last week was almost unthinkable, is considered to be a wrong and misguided decision and one that people connected with learning will infinitely regret for many years.

This is an intriguing argument, but does not the hon. Gentleman admit that it can be demonstrated by hon. Members of both parties that people are getting tired of everything being centred in London and think that other parts of the country should have a share in the things of which Britain is proud?

I could argue in depth the case for having the National Library in London. The right hon. Gentleman and I both feel that there is a strong case to be made for keeping the library in London. The right hon. Gentleman has said so. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had better address his remarks to his right hon. Friend.

When a Minister has a weak case he always tries to make it better by abusing the Opposition. The Secretary of State is no exception to this rule. Whenever he speaks of the British Museum he implies that no decision was taken by the previous Government on this matter. He and I know that that is utter nonsense. As long ago as 1948 this site was designated. It was in the L.C.C. Plan in 1951. There was a public inquiry later and then the Minister of Housing gave approval in 1955. I have the authority of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham, who was Minister of Public Building and Works at the time, to say that this decision was taken firmly in principle by him in 1964, that there was no shadow of doubt whatsoever that Her Majesty's Government at that time would press ahead with this decision, and that all that remained to he settled were matters of detail. The principle of the scheme had been definitely agreed.

I have also the authority of the British Museum to say that, at no stage, was it in any doubt at that time that this scheme had been approved in principle or that anything other than matters of detail remained to be settled. The Government are trying to make their case better by implying that we did nothing, but a definite decision was taken. It is not a case of the Minister, after years of delay, taking a brave, bold and resolute decison. He has reversed a decision which had almost universal approval and imposed one which is bitterly regretted by all those with anything to do with the situation.

Today's letter to The Times by the chairman of the planning committee of Camden, Mr. Roy Shaw, shows how ridiculous this decision is. He said:

"… being, we hope, neither obscurantist nor Philistine we have never voiced outright opposition nor objected to the scheme in principle. We confidently expected further consultation with the Ministry in order to try to resolve the difficulties, but heard nothing more until Mr. Gordon Walker's announcement in the House."

The Museum Trustees heard nothing more, and they were expecting consultation, as was Camden, yet the Secretary of State tries to pretend that adequate consultation took place, that everyone was misled and that all were out of step except himself.

Both sides were prepared to compromise on this matter. Surely the job of a responsible Minister was to try to make both sides see reason and reach a compromise. If they did not, of course, he would be right to impose his own solution, but did he try? He made no attempt whatever.

I now will deal with the so-called consultation that the hon. Gentleman entered into. Many hon. Members will have read with a sense of outrage the letter by Lord Radcliffe in The Times on Tuesday, 31st October. It sets out in detail what happened in the negotiations. I have yet to hear any Minister refute Lord Radcliffe's letter in which he said:

"I went to see Mr. Crosland on 14th June … I did not go as someone whose views had been invited about anything or as someone called into consultation. On the contrary, as I made very plain at the opening of the meeting, I went there to protest that the Trustees had not been consulted as they ought to have been."

His letter continued:

"From that day to this, I have never heard a word from the Department of Education on the subject either by way of comment, criticism or further inquiry. I have no idea whether they have accepted or rejected our arguments or why".

Is that the way that the Secretary of State thinks that he should treat this distinguished body, the trustees of the Museum, who are set the duty by Act of Parliament to advise about these matters? They are not all Conservatives, by any means, but are eminent men of all parties and no party, of learning and distinction in a wide range of subjects. Can any Minister be proud of a situation handled in that way?

What is the right hon. Gentleman doing now? He attempts to save face by saying that he will create a new committee to solve this problem, on which he says we have been vacillating for too long. What does he do? He appoints another committee to go into the whole library field—three months after the University Grants Committee produced its voluminous report on libraries which took four years to produce. May we have some names of people who will serve on this committee today? Apparently we may not have them today. I suspect that the Secretary of State is hard put to find eminent men to serve on it, in view of the way in which he has treated those who have dealt with this matter before—

Lord Chalfont should be the chairman.

The hon. Gentleman suggests Lord Chalfont as the chairman. I leave him to what he calls his private battles.

How can the Secretary of State seriously say that this appointment of a new committee will cause no delay? We all know that there will be delay. The architectural sketch plans will be out of date and not attributable to the new site. The hon. Lady thinks that this a good thing. It may be a good or a bad thing, but they will be out of date. Suppose that he fixes on a new site—there will have to be a public inquiry if there is any controversy about it.

How can there not be delay? The plans will have to be approved, there will have to be a public inquiry, new architectural sketch plans will have to be approved and the details gone into. There will have to be designation, and endless problems will arise as a result of the Secretary of State's decision. He knows it as well as I, and it is useless to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the House of Commons, and pretend that there will be no delay when he changes his mind on such a vital issue.

There have been several blows to the Secretary of State today. In The Times this morning we read that the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain is appalled by his decision. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of its reaction when he met the trustees of the British Museum? Did they get the impression that the Pharmaceutical Society would be appalled by the Government's decision? Camden Borough Council is not against it in principle, but would like changes made. There are letters in The Times and The Guardian, which I would quote if I had more time, showing that the residents are not unanimous. There have been letters in The Times and one in The Guardian from residents who think that the state of affairs is now worse than throughout the long stages of the issue.

Who is for the decision? It is not the unanimous residents, the trustees of the British Museum, the Pharmaceutical Society or Camden Borough Council. What has caused the Secretary of State to go back on the decision and cause himself so much trouble? Many hon. Members believe that it is the Lord President of the Council who has overruled the Secretary of State. He need not look so surprised, because he knows as well as I that the Lord President had a great deal to do with the decision.

I totally deny that. I do not know it as well as the hon. Gentleman, because he is saying something that is not true and he should withdraw it.

If the Secretary of State says that the Lord President had nothing to do with the decision—

Of course, I discussed it with my colleagues, but to say that I was overruled is absolute nonsense.

The Secretary of State was at the Cabinet meeting when the decision was made, and I cannot quarrel with what he says. If he is delighted with the decision, the world of education and learning will know what to think of him.

This is not a party political matter, but a political matter of great significance to the future of the library service and learning in this country. On 27th October The Times described the Secretary of State's decision as "An Unworthy Decision", in the heading to its first leader. The Times thought that it was unworthy in the way that the right hon. Gentleman consulted the trustees and dealt with them, and unworthy in the way the decision was made. As it rightly said:

"Mr. Gordon Walker's 'small independent committee' to plough the field of a national library all over again is a piece of Whitehall flannel."

It is an unworthy decision by the Secretary of State, and it is not surprising that The Times should say this morning that he is the Minister who should go if any Minister should. Both on Enfield and the British Museum, the Secretary of State has made the wrong decision and in the wrong way.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman to reverse this decision before it is too late. I do not do so with confidence, but I once more ask him to try to reverse it before doing irreparable damage to the British Museum library and learning, destroying a unique institution which many people have looked forward to for years, praying for it to arrive. To destroy it at the last moment is the height of folly.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on attaining his new responsibilities, but perhaps I should use about his speech the word he repeated many times about my right hon. Friend —"unworthy". That was a good fighting speech but it was on one subject, and was unworthy of a debate to cover the whole of education. Important though the British Museum is, it is necessarily only one of many crucial subjects in education.

The House does not get many opportunities to discuss education. On this occasion the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and other hon. Members have raised all manner of questions of the greatest importance, and he should have spent a little of his half hour on some other subject than one which he may well regard as politically worth exploiting, but which is not necessarily of sole importance to the many parents and teachers who regard education debates as being of significance to themselves.

I want to make only one or two remarks about the British Museum controversy, because I wish to turn to the other major subjects of education. The hon. Gentleman said more than once that the decision was made by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in September, 1964. I repeat the phrase used at the time. The decision was taken

"… subject to consultation with the many interested authorities including housing and planning authorities".

Either the then Minister meant what he said or he did not; and my hon. Friends would take "subject to consultation" to mean exactly that—that no final decision had been made. Or he never intended to take any notice of those consultations, in which case, arguably, a decision was made. But certainly he cannot have it both ways.

Does the Minister really not accept, now that the statement which I made at the time has been quoted quite fully in the House, that it was absolutely clear that we had agreed in principle that the scheme should go ahead and that the only consultations which were to take place were on matters of timing, of re-phasing the scheme, of arranging the rehousing and matters of detailed architectural design? Will not she accept that the Secretary of State is, in fact, lying—[Interruption.]—every time he makes his assertion that we did not have a firm decision in principle on the scheme —[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]— and that this was accepted by Lord Radcliffe and the trustees of the British Museum?

Order. I think that I should require the right hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

If it is necessary for me to comply with the rules of the House and withdraw my use of the word "lying", then I do so—but I substitute any other phrase, "terminological inexactitude" or anything else, for it.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman's withdrawal was not very graceful.

There is another point about the British Museum issue and I make it because, as many of my hon. Friends do too, I have great respect for Lord Radcliffe. I have read the transcript of the meeting at which he met my right hon. Friend's predecessor, who is now the President of the Board of Trade. It is quite clear from that transcript that either gentleman could honourably have gone away from that meeting concluding that there would be either a further meeting or that there would not. The question of a further meeting was at no stage raised. Indeed, the point made on more than one occasion was the necessity for an early decision.

I repeat the phrase "the necessity for an early decision", which rather suggests that Lord Radcliffe at least considered that no decision had yet finally been taken. I repeat that I would not like to suggest that Lord Radcliffe could otherwise have known that there would be another meeting and I repeat that no suggestion was made at that meeting that another meeting would be held before the Government's decision was made known.

From that rather contentious subject I turn to some of the more general matters which have been raised today; first, by the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). In Circular 10/65 my right hon. Friend's predecessor, now the President of the Board of Trade, referred to the need for consultation with teachers and for keeping parents informed. In his subsequent speech, he referred again to the need to do this in the case of any scheme which was revised in a major way. We would, therefore, expect local education authorities to take this action, and if a scheme is put before us which is not wholly satisfactory, we will take account of the degree of consultation that has taken place. I give that assurance.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Ealing education authorities — certainly the councillors on the Labour side—spent nearly 18 months going round the borough explaining the scheme, inviting people to come to meetings and ask questions and attending meetings, some of which were crowded and others of which were not? Is she aware that for people who are not paid for doing this sort of work they are a credit to the British constitutional system and that any attack on them for perhaps neglecting some of their responsibilities is to be deplored?

When my hon. Friend reads my speech on Monday he will notice that I have not referred to or made any allegations about the details in Ealing, or the point that he has raised. I have tried to make clear that the Department of Education and Science has indicated consistently that it thinks that consultation over both original and revised schemes is proper, and that we are bound to take this into account. It is not my purpose to try to judge one way or the other the degree of consultation by Ealing, although I understand that on the original scheme there had been very thorough consultation.

The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) will know, as I do, that Hertfordshire put forward a scheme for five form entry comprehensive schools. The education authority there was not pressurised into this—there was no suggestion of holding up the building programme. Hertfordshire put forward a scheme which was not directly in alignment with Circular 10/65, but which was nevertheless accepted by my right hon. Friend for the larger part of the county. That cannot be called unreasonable treatment and the fact that my right hon. Friend asked the county council to reconsider the position in two areas arose directly from the fact that there was strong local and teacher opinion against the proposed solution.

I turn now to the wider questions raised in this debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Handsworth appreciates, because he always covers a wide range when discussing education, that the balance in any educational programme is bound to be that between the pressure of demand and the extent of the resources to meet it. That pressure of demand arises partly from the rise in population in the schools, partly from the trend to stay on at school and partly from the increase in numbers pursuing the qualifications which entitle boys and girls to higher education. In the years when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Education, and when my right hon. Friend's predecessor was Minister of Education, all these three factors have shown a very marked increase.

Let us, therefore, look at resources and expansion of resources to meet this markedly increased demand. My right hon. Friend dealt with the teacher position in detail, so I will touch on only two facts. There has been a consistent improvement in the last three years both in the reduction of the proportion of overcrowded classes and in the pupil-teacher ratio. This has occurred despite a very sharp increase indeed in the school population, and I think that this is deserving of credit for the Government of which I have the honour to be a member.

The other point follows from that made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) who rightly expressed his concern about preparations for the raising of the school-leaving age 1970–71. He will, however, forgive me, I am sure, if I correct his figures. On the best estimates we have, the current shortage of teachers is about 40,000. That figure is based on the work of the National Advisory Council for the Training and Supply of Teachers, and is half the deficit he indicated.

Therefore, in order to raise the school-leaving age without making any change in that deficit we need an additional 20,000 teachers, but the present rate of increase in the number of young men and women qualified and coming out of training and colleges of education is such that the deficit will be reduced to 18,000 by 1970–71. There will then be an increased demand as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age. But, at the end of the process in 1971–72, the teacher supply deficit, as we estimated it, will be approximately 32,000, which is less than at present without the school-leaving age having been raised.

I turn now to school-building programmes. In the years 1968–70 the school-building programme will amount to £316 million, which includes the £16 million for Plowden areas. This is by far the largest school-building programme ever. In 1966–67 the starts in major school-building projects reached the record figure of £87 million, and because we recognise the necessity to assist authorities by speeding up the process of building programmes the programme for 1970–71 will be announced in April of next year, which will give the authorities a good deal of notice.

The right hon. Member for Handsworth raised a point that he has raised before in this House and on other occasions, saying that the primary school record of the present Government is not as good as that of his own Government. I think that this argument is just a shade unworthy of him, when one reflects that in the five years during which he was a distinguished figure at the Ministry of Education there was a drop in the primary school population of 104,000 boys and girls. In the two years 1965–66 and 1966–67, bringing it up to the end of the last year for which my Government have been responsible, there was an increase in the primary school population of no less than 162,000 as compared with a drop of 104,000. The right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that this necessarily means that a large part of our primary school building programme must go on basic need. He, no more than my right hon. Friend, would be prepared to keep children out of school altogether.

When one has an increase of that scale, any Government out of its programme has to allocate more resources to basic need. It is fairer to look not at the improvement provision as distinct from basic need, but at the actual provision of places in primary schools which have been built. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that these figures are an attempt to be fair to the House and to give figures which cannot be affected by, for example, rises in costs. In 1960 the number of primary school places built both for basic need and in respect of improvement was 83,305. In 1963–4, when the right hon. Gentleman left office, the number was 108,000. In the calendar year 1966, the last year for which we have complete figures, the number was 162,100, an increase of 50 per cent. on the year in which the right hon. Gentleman left office. I hope he will recognise that the charges he makes against my Government are misplaced and unfair.

The hon. Lady will recall that in 1964, before I left office, I announced the 1965–66 programme and very nearly all the 1966–67 programme. Those were announced in 1964. I think that it is a fair point to make in view of what the hon. Lady has just said. My complaint was one of disappointment about the programmes beginning in 1968.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I think it fair to reply to it that the increase in the primary school population goes on steadily until the end of this decade with little sign of any relief before that.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a point about the size of the university population and the scale of the university capital programme. He asked a direct question, why did we not accept the figure of 245,000 put forward, he said, by the vice-chancellors of the universities. It was put forward by the vice-chancellors in a sense, but it was not put forward by the collective committee of vice-chancellors. It was simply the adding together of the reasonable ambitions of all vice-chancellors, and therefore represents the individual views of the vice-chancellors. He will know that our figure of 225,000 which goes well ahead of the Robbins target and indeed also his own figure will be met, and will be met without the damaging effect to other parts of the higher education programme which would follow from trying to shift resources even further towards university expansion.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the capital programme for the universities and referred to the fact that during his period of office, programmes for university capital building were greater than those which are now being carried out. It is interesting that he should say this. I have done some homework on it and I find that in September, 1964, his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), the then Secretary of State, issued the following statement:

"For this purpose the Government are proposing to allocate building starts of £83 million to the university Grants Committee for the period of the three financial years, 1966–67, 1967–68 and 1968–69. £33 million of this will be utilised in the first year, £25 million in the second and £25 million in the third year."

I cannot see the right hon. Gentleman's basis of complaint since in those three years, against the £33 million committed by his right hon. and learned Friend the present Government have spent £40 million, against the £25 million committed by his right hon. Friend for the second year the Government have spent £30 million, and for the third year the figure is identical with that programmed by the present Government. In addition, this does not take into account the fact that we have revised the cost limits upwards. Therefore, these figures do not take account of inflated costs. In view of this, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument can be sustained.

I apologise for rising again and promise that I will not intervene too often. The hon. Lady forgets that there was a £15 million cut due to the moratorium in 1965. The extra £12 million has to be measured against that cut of £15 million. Secondly, it was always understood by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and myself and by the then Chief Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), that a sum of £5 million would be authorised to meet the needs of obsolescence. Therefore, that £25 million was very much a provisional figure.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. I suppose I could come back by saying that he will know also that there have been for various purposes, particularly connected with computer research, grants which are not included in the figure I have given either. Therefore, I think that we come out even.

We take the very important point raised by the hon. Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) concerning accommodation. I will not make any statement to the effect that the student accommodation problem has been coped with by this Government or by their predecessors. It is a serious problem which deserves very careful thought as to the means of providing student accommodation. My right hon. Friend and I are very interested in the experiments now going ahead in places like Lancaster and Stirling. We are interested in the suggestions made very responsibly by the National Union of Students concerning the question of self-financing student accommodation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking very carefully at this question and hope to make a thorough review of it.

The right hon. Member for Hands-worth raised the question of obsolescence in civic universities. I give him the same assurance.

I turn to the question of the equipment grant, which was a direct question to me during the debate. I give the assurance that over and above the new equipment grant, which is based upon a new system, and the £1·65 million additional sum which is being made in view of the emergency arising from the changeover of the system, there will be a sum of £4·9 million to bridge the gap from 1st April to 31st July, which is a reasonable sum for that period of time.

The subject of polytechnics was raised by the right hon. Member for Hands-worth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) in a powerful speech. In designating the present 30 polytechnics, with a fairly short-term target of 60,000 students—students doing advance work and many of them degree work; so this figure may be added on to university expansion—it was made clear by my right hon. Friend's predecessor that local authorities would be asked to consult academic staff and all those concerned in the existing institutions. As we consider schemes which come in, we will very closely consider the question whether such consultation has taken place and whether it has been adequate.

Further, with regard to the question about colleges of art, which was raised by one or two hon. Members, there is a particular difficulty of communication on this one arising from the fact that, understandably, many colleges of art view the polytechnics rather in the way that they viewed their association with technical college in the past. The principals of colleges of art, incidentally, are rather neatly divided on the issue whether or not they want to join polytechnics, with approximately half of them in favour and approximately half of them against.

I believe that they have reasonable grounds to fear that their needs may not be fully considered, arising from past history. Because we have indicated time and time again that we would expect the staffs of colleges of art, and the principals in particular, to be fully consulted and fully represented in future polytechnics, I believe that much of this anxiety is misplaced. It is anxiety about a past position and not about the new institutions that we are trying to create.

That is only half the argument. It is my right hon. Friend's responsibility and mine to ensure that the colleges of art feel that their position has been fully considered before any polytechnic including them is designated.

There is one other point, and it is a crucial one. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House frequently discuss the difficulties arising from inadequate design of industrial products and things of that sort. A good deal of concern is expressed on this point. We believe that there is a great deal to be said for the cross-fertilisation of technological studies with art studies. It is notably true of industrial and commercial design where the introduction of art and technical studies into a single institution can do nothing but good.

Also we believe—because in a sense it is part of the whole man to have knowledge of arts as well as of science and technology—that the mixing of students and the ability to converse among themselves can do nothing but good and produces a situation which is helpful to our society. The R.I.B.A. has indicated that it will accept architectural courses running in the Polytechnics, indicating the importance it places on close co-operation between architectural studies and the processes of building.

May I deal briefly with the points raised about post-graduates and science. The hon. Member for Wokingham talked about loans and grants, and I assure him that there is no prospect of an early decision in this matter. It is being considered as any Government would want to consider such a large section of public expenditure. There will be plenty of opportunity for further discussion in this House and elsewhere before any decision is likely to be taken.

In addition to the points that the hon. Gentleman made—points which are very close to my own heart—with regard to the position of married women and less well-off families, there is also the interesting situation of the parental grant towards costs which, in the case of some older students, creates certain difficulties. That is another factor that we would wish to bear in mind in the consideration of the question where loans and grants fit together.

There is also the matter of postgraduate degrees, and this is a very important point, where one would need to consider the balance, if any, between loans and grants. May I point out that the present position with regard to postgraduate awards is one which is familiar to the right hon. Gentleman. The local education authorities are not expected to make awards where the Government have set up a fund to do so. May I quote:

"Local education authorities will not be expected to make awards in any of the fields of studies mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 6 above."

I am quoting from the last circular issued by the right hon. Gentleman on the very day that he ceased to be Minister of Education. Therefore, in this case we have followed out the policy which he laid down, because we felt it right to do so. We have continued to indicate to local education authorities that they are not expected to make awards where the Government have taken that responsibility.

On the question of the S.S.R.C., last year 42 per cent. of those with good honours degrees—upper seconds and firsts—received post-graduate awards, and this year the figure has jumped to 50 per cent. in the same group. With regard to science awards, although I have not got the precise proportion here, the figure is unquestionably higher than 50 per cent. The local education authorities can in law make awards if they wish to do so, but the advice is the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman. and we stand by that advice.

As to the awards which are discretionary, of course there are individual cases where local authorities decide not to make awards. Hon. Members can and should approach local authorities because this is their responsibility as a result of the 1962 Act and is not that of the Department. Nevertheless, within the field of post-graduate awards, where their discretion operates, the figure rose from 620 in 1963–64 to 1,578 in 1965–66, indicating that education authorities are being more generous than they used to be with regard to discretionary awards.

I turn now from higher education to our schools, and to primary schools in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East asked whether it would be possible for schools to stay open for backward children on Saturday mornings. This is already happening in some areas, both staying open after the end of the normal school day and making school facilities open in the evening and sometimes at weekends. We encourage anything that can be done to bring the school closer to the community. We are giving this move financial backing by our indication that sums from the £16 million can be spent on staff facilities and on annexes for use by parents as well as by children. There is, therefore, no doubt that we are behind this kind of move. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that we cannot force it upon authorities, and we certainly would not wish to force it upon teachers either. It must be a voluntary movement.

Now, one or two points regarding the Plowden Report. My right hon. Friend referred to the £16 million for educational priority areas. I can add that the Arbitral Body was made aware of the possibility, arising from a proposal in Plowden, of extra salaries for teachers in E.P.A.s. Clearly, I cannot make a decisive statement about it now, but it is being considered by the two sides. We are starting the first ever in-service course on specifically Plowden children, again a recommendation in the Report. Certain colleges of education, with encouragement from us, are running Plowden courses.

To take a recent example, in Edge Hill, near Liverpool, work is going on in training teachers who are given a social worker's background as well so that they may deal particularly with this problem. Work is going on on new courses for children who, because of national origin, for instance immigrant, language difficulty, family environment or other reasons, need special attention. The Schools Council is considering further changes in curriculum arising from Plowden proposals. A booklet giving examples, as recommended by Plowden, is being prepared on the subject of parent-teacher relations, and this will be circulated to all L.E.A.s in a few months.

Over 100 teachers centres have been set up so that teachers' best methods already existing can be extended to all primary schools.

As regards independent schools, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he is strongly behind the proposal that, after a given date, no non-qualified teacher should be appointed as head teacher of an independent school—another Plowden suggestion. Although it may be a little time before legislation on the matter can be brought in, my right hon. Friend wishes to make clear to independent schools that he hopes that they will, as quickly as possible, carry this Plowden recommendation into effect.

On the subject of special schools, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends who made the suggestion that we have carefully considered and are now considering the proposal that the next remit of the Central Advisory Council should be to consider special schools. We recognise the importance of it.

In the last two minutes, I want to say a word about science. My right hon. Friend and I very much share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about greater European cooperation. Again, this is not just a bland statement. It is being carried into effect already, to this extent, that this year the Royal Society, with assistance from the Government, is starting an exchange scheme for European scientists. The scheme is due to increase substantially next year and the year after, and the Royal Society is giving a strong lead in this direction.

I should like to say more but, in view of the time, all I can add is that a decision is to be made on the C.E.R.N. project, the 300 GeV nuclear accelerator —for which Britain has offered a site at Mundford in Norfolk—and we hope that it will be put to the House before the end of this year, before the meeting of the C.E.R.N. council in December.

This is a record of considerable achievement right across the field of education. I trust that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite, in all honesty, will recognise that these achieve- ments are very much more substantial than the one or two individual problems which blow up from time to time and are then heavily exploited by some sections of political parties and of the Press.

Once or twice I have suggested to the Prime Minister that we have too many Government Departments, but while preparing for this Adjournment debate it was brought home to me how useful it is to have so many Departments, because I was approached by no fewer than three of these Departments who wished to reply to the debate.

When I was faced with this type of Holy Trinity I had to make a decision as to which Department should reply Eventually, I asked the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to do so, not only because I felt that some of my remarks were aimed at it but also because I felt that it was a stick which could be used to prod some of the other Departments involved, such as the Board of Trade. It is in these terms, I hope, that they will consider my remarks—not only in terms of what they themselves can do, but also in terms of what they can prod others to do.

I chose this Department because the whole of the industrial problem of South Bedfordshire is allied closely to the considerable growth in the area. May I draw the attention of the House to the extreme nature of this growth over the last two years by asking hon. Members to consider three areas involved. Between 1954 and 1966 the population of the Luton County Borough increased from 112,500 to 152,560, an increase of about 50 per cent. In the same period, between 1954 and 1966, there was an increase in the population of the Dunstable Borough of about 60 per cent. from 17,570 to 28,740.

In the Luton Rural District Council area the increase was proportionately even greater. In 1954, the population was 20,090 and by 1966 it had risen to 34,950, an increase of 75 per cent. Moreover, that increase hides the fact that during that period part of the R.D.C. was transferred to the county borough, so that the effective increase in population in the R.D.C. area in these 12 years was well over 100 per cent.

The first point which is emphasised, therefore, is the rapid rate of growth of the area, and that rapid rate of growth is closely allied to the schemes which have been operated in the area for housing what is sometimes called, I do not think very aptly, overspill population. Already there have been two major overspills, one at Houghton Regis, which already has about 1,400 dwellings, and one at the Lewsey Farm Estate, which has about 1,000 houses.

The industrial problem is accentuated by the fact that the average number per family in the Houghton Regis overspill, which has been measured, is 4·14, compared with a national average of three. This provides an additional problem in that the teenagers from the estate are looking for more jobs, and the problem will be accentuated considerably in the next few years by the fact that at Houghton Regis we shall get 2,500 more local authority houses from Greater London, 1,000 of them probably within the next three or four years.

I want to make clear that there is no suggestion that the area in any way resists overspill. In fact, it welcomes it. But it welcomes it so long as the overspill is accompanied by the necessary additional jobs. The unfortunate thing in this part of the country, it seems to some of us, is the fact that we are getting the population without the industrial advantages.

I will not delay the House by listing the advantages that some new town developments have compared with overspill of this type, but it is undoubtedly true that new towns have financial advantages, low rent factories and priority for industrial development certificates second only to the development areas. So because we are getting overspill as such and not overspill under a new town mantle, although the size of the overspill is approaching those proportions, we are faced with the situation that there is no direct industrial provision for the additional population.

I am not expressing merely a personal view about these uncertainties. My hon. Friend's Department has received letters from the Houghton Regis Labour Party and the Houghton Regis Parish Council expressing very much the same fears. These were in no way initiated by the debate. When the letters were written, the people concerned were not aware that a debate was to take place.

The letter from the Houghton Regis Labour Party states:

"At a meeting of the members of the above local organisation held on 20th September, 1967, who were informed of the progress towards the commencing of the first phase of 1,000 dwellings on a large scale overspill development of 2,500 dwellings within this parish, in view of the present employment position in this area members expressed great concern that there are at present no plans for bringing new industry into the area for this development. You will be aware that we have already within the parish a large overspill population from our existing L.C.C. development of 1,000 dwellings. Population increase"—

I emphasise this—

"has been achieved smoothly and satisfactorily, but there is now and has been for some time very serious misgivings about the present and future employment position in this area. Present employment in this area is dominated by the motor industry, and although in this industry, as in other industries, output schedules call for increased production, the number of employees required to do the work decreases."

These feelings are also expressed by the Houghton Regis Parish Council and many members of the Luton Rural District Council. I believe that the Chairman of the Luton Rural District Council is in the Gallery this afternoon.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not call attention to the presence of strangers.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

I was about to say that this feeling is generally felt in the area.

Let us look for a minute at the present industrial position. It is true that the unemployment level in the area is not particularly high by national standards. However, we are facing not only a problem of unemployment, but problems which are caused particularly by the dominance on employment of one industry, the motor industry. This dominance is increasing from year to year.

In 1952, for example, only 20 per cent. of the total employment in Luton was in the car Industry, and about 2 per cent. in Dunstable, but by 1966 30 per cent. of the total employed in all industries and services in Luton, and in Dunstable something approaching that figure, about 28 per cent., were employed directly on car production. If we include the numbers employed in the associated industries, the figure conies to about 50 per cent. of the total working population in the areas.

The situation would present no particular problem if the car industry was not, by its very nature, so volatile. During the last year we have seen the danger of having a volatile industry of this kind. We have seen not only a trebling of the unemployment figure over a very short period, but a large reduction in the purchasing power of the community. Many retailers have spoken of a falling off in trade of 20 per cent., and even 30 per cent., between 1966 and 1967. The problem which really faces this areas is that there is this overwhelming dominance by an extremely volatile car industry, particularly when the country is contending with measures such as those introduced by the Government during the past year.

Looking at the long-term situation, we must realise that the car industry is subject to the problems caused by automation, and that it may well be that future levels of employment in this type of industry will decrease even if the number of cars produced increases. Automation in the American car industry is much more advanced than it is here. In 1955, 718,000 people were employed on car production in America, and they produced about 9 million cars. By 1965, the figure had fallen to 660,000, although they produced 11 million cars. It will be seen, therefore, that in my area we are faced with the problem of a reduction in long-term employment.

It must be remembered, too, that because of the one-sidedness of the industrial pattern there is an enormous shortage of jobs for women. In fact, the situation is such that some women travel to North London every day to find work. I believe that the Board of Trade should look again at the question of I.D.C.s for this area, to try to provide alternative industries. Because of the dominance of the car industry the Board of Trade should depart somewhat from its rather hidebound attitude. We need industrial estates, to provide jobs for women and young people.

We must be very careful in the choice of industry for an area such as Houghton Regis which is dominated by the car industry, and dominated in another sense by the cement industry. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, during the last two years I have been in frequent correspondence with him on the problems of cement dust.

I will not dwell at length on this matter this afternoon but I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend that although it is obvious that the company concerned has already spent a great deal of money in trying to cut down the cement dust, the problem—and now it includes the problem of cement flaking—still exists in the area. My hon. Friend will know that I have had a petition containing hundreds of signatures from local residents who are concerned about the problem and that these residents feel that even after the improvements that have been made by the company in the last few months there has been little visible improvement in terms of the fall of cement dust.

Whenever I hold consultations in this area I am swamped by constituents complaining about the problem. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that people do not complain for nothing. They still feel that this is a read problem. I ask my hon. Friend to continue with his efforts to solve the problem. I appreciate them, and also the efforts of the company, but even more money must be spent and more experimentation carried out if this problem is to be solved. It has a vital bearing on the problem of making new industry acceptable in the area.

The area needs new industry, and this industry must satisfy three characteristics. It must be divorced from the existing car industry. Secondly, it must harmonise with the large populations in the area and with the new populations that will continue to come into the area.

Thirdly, it must provide female employment. If there is to be any meaning to the job of an individual Member the Ministry must be prepared to act in response to a widespread constituency demand of this type.

During the last few days we have had a planning report on the area, which talks of it as a growth area. I am sure that growth is welcomed in the area. South Bedfordshire wants, and is quite prepared to accept, many more people, but it also wants jobs for them to go to.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) for raising this subject and giving me some idea of the matters that he wished to cover.

As he said, the points that he has raised are the responsibility of more than one Department, and though I have taken some steps to address myself to the general position my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot answer for more than my Ministerial responsibilities. If there are any points with which I cannot satisfactorily deal—for the reason that I have stated or because of the lack of time —I shall be glad to supplement by correspondence anything that I have to say.

I also thank my hon. Friend for all the steps that he has been taking in relation to the problems not only of cement dust, but employment and other matters. He has been a most able and worthy advocate of the interests of his constituents, as I know not only by correspondence but by deputations that he has brought to see my Department from time to time.

My hon. Friend first spoke about the growth of population in the area, in relation to the overspill not only of Houghton Regis but South Bedfordshire as a whole. When the South-East Study was reviewed last year we made a forecast about the increase in South Bedfordshire, which will include Luton. I am interested to see my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Howie) in his place this afternoon. The estimates which we made at the time led us to believe that, between 1964 and 1981, there might be an addition of about 54,000 people, mostly by natural increase, bringing the area's total to about 280,000. This kind of figure must be borne in mind in considering future prospects for employment and in other matters.

We are not absolutely clear, of course, about the future growth of the area, and cannot be at this stage, but my hon. Friend would probably like to know that the problem is being investigated by the South Bedfordshire Sub-Regional Study set up by the present Leader of the House, when Minister of Housing and Local Government, in 1966. This will, of course, be a detailed study and will include very much more than we have been able to do so far, about the present population structure and its future growth, particularly in relation to the Government's policies on population and industrial expansion elsewhere in the South-East.

The study is also examining industrial and employment structure, primary road networks, shopping and other facilities, and also, very important, the availability of land for future development. It is hoped that we shall get this body's report early next year, which will enable us to plan with greater precision and assurance than at present.

My hon. Friend rightly spent much of his time discussing the present employment position and the fact that so much of the area depends on one industry, the car industry. All of us would agree that any possible diversification of employment ought to be made. It is always dangerous when an area's prosperity and work depend on one industry, which may be subject to many changes.

My latest figures in relation to the proportion of workers in this industry in the area as compared with other employment show that it has been slowly altering. The dependence is declining. The car industry now provides about 28 per cent. of the total employment as against 32 per cent. in 1961—

But at the moment, one of the major firms in our area is rightly taking on many workers again, and the percentage changes here are very small. There may have been a gradual decline over the last year or two, but, in the longer term, there is little doubt that the percentage is steadily climbing.

I think that the trend is in the direction which I have stated, because the dependence is less on one industry than it was before. Second, the figures now relate to a position in which the industry is fairly highly automated in the area. My hon. Friend may have seen, in the current edition of the Engineer that the new Bedford truck works is described as being the highest output plant in Europe.

At the same time, we must recognise that the world car fleet and that in England is expected to rise, so there is no need to fear for the industry's future. Of course, any step to lessen the dependence upon this one industry is to be welcomed. Indeed, I believe that one local firm is, as my hon. Friend said, asking for more workers—about 3,000—at the moment, but I hope that he will remember that the plant is highly automated and that, therefore, the decline in the labour force is not likely to be much greater for some time to come at least.

My hon. Friend raised the general question of further industrial development in the area, that of female labour, and also that of industrial development certificates. Although great consideration must, in general, be given for new industries to be in the development areas or in new or expanding towns, a considerable number of industrial development certificates was issued between November, 1964 and 31st October this year. In the Luton area the number of certificates was 34, covering 399,000 sq. ft.; in Dunstable it was 17 certificates, covering 245,000 sq. ft.; and in Leighton Buzzard it was 13, covering 92,000 sq. ft. According to the records I have obtained from the Board of Trade, there is spare capacity in all those areas.

Furthermore, in Dunstable a large factory development is taking place. It may be used singly or be split up amongst a number of units. Therefore, although there is some unemployment in the area there is not much doubt that it is less than the national average. South Bedfordshire is basically very prosperous. The Board of Trade tells me that up until now there has been no particular problem about female labour, but that should the position change the Department and the Ministry of Labour will look at the matter and take any steps open to them. In fact, there has been a shortage of female labour in some parts of the area.

I shall not weary the House with the figures of those without work in the area, because they are very small. At the three employment exchanges of Luton, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard the number of insured employees has risen by over 9,300 between 1961 and 1966. This has coped fairly well with the expansion of the overspill in Houghton Regis sanctioned by my Department. We welcome the letters and views we have received both from the parish council and the constituency Labour Party, and we have taken due note of them.

The other point that is dear to my hon. Friend's heart is the question of cement dust. I live in an area of Kent which is, fortunately, not affected by it, but I am near enough to know how very bad this annoyance and nuisance can be in the Thames Valley. I do not want to go through the whole history of the many steps taken by the industry and the Department's Alkali Inspectorate, but shall come to the serious problem of the cement "blobs", which, I understand, are formed from the fine dust emitted by the newer tall chimneys.

This is undoubtedly a serious nuisance and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the Inspectorate is meeting the Cement Makers' Federation shortly to investigate the phenomena, which, I think arises from new technical processes. It is as bad in that area as it is anywhere, but the problem is not found only in the area.

I hope that we shall be able to report satisfactory steps which may help alleviate what is undoubtedly a nuisance about which my hon. Friend's constituents have every right to complain. I have kept a close eye on the situation there. We have had reports from time to time and apart from this particular difficulty I think that there has been a marked improvement. The factory estate is much better than it was. It has been tidied up and cement roads have been constructed. Other measures have been carried out by the firm, and there are still more to come.

The Chief Public Health Inspector of the Luton Rural District Council reports that there has been an improvement in the first six months' operation of the new kiln but that does not deny that the "blob" problem exists. My hon. Friend has every justification for pressing it, and where I and cement dust are con- cerned he is pressing on an open door. We shall do everything we can to help him.