asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what letters he has received on the caning of handicapped children; and what replies he has sent.

I have had 10 letters on this subject. In my replies I have corrected misunderstandings and made the following main points: that I am very much against the corporal punishment of handicapped children but believe that decisions must rest with teachers, in whom I have confidence; that I do not propose to make regulations on this subject; and that the Inspectorate tells me that corporal punishment in schools for such children is very little used now.

Will the Secretary of State state whether the Association of Workers for Maladjusted Children has written to him expressing its disagreement with his views about his predecessor's policy? Will my right hon. Friend at least consider sending out a circular to local authorities disapproving of the cane being used on handicapped children?

I am sure that through my hon. Friend's efforts every local authority will have read about my views on this matter. I believe that I have received a letter from the body my hon. Friend mentions. I have also received communications from such bodies as the A.M.C. and the C.C.A., which are very much against the making of this regulation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that he has the support of the overwhelming majority of teachers in the policy he is now pursuing, which is a great improvement on that pursued by his predecessor?

I do not think that making a regulation would make any difference. There are black sheep in every profession who, no matter what the regulations are, will over-step the mark. I do not think that making regulations will alter that.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take additional steps to encourage the adoption of the four-term year in schools.

Local education authorities are free to decide the number of school terms in any year. I would see no advantage in encouraging a general move to a four-term year, unless changes could be agreed in the timing of public examinations. Three years ago, when my Department canvassed educational opinion on the possibility of holding the General Certificate of Education examinations; in the spring term, the general response was strongly unfavourable.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer. Does he not agree that the present rather long terms impose: a considerable strain on younger primary schoolchildren and that there may, for this category of schoolchildren, be both educational and medical advantages in a four-term year?

I agree that there are some advantages. I know that some local authorities are looking at this. They are free to do it if they wish. There are other considerations—for example, the employment pattern in the neighbourhood, the effect on holidays, and so forth.

I agree with the Answer which the Secretary of State has given, but will he help the present three-term system by trying to influence those responsible for the G.C.E. examinations to hold them a little later in the summer than they are doing at present?

All the G.C.E. examinations are now over by the end of June. My predecessor changed the regulations about the summer holiday last year. Local authorities have a fair amount of scope with the summer holidays. They can have them in July, August or September. There is a great deal of scope for staggering. Here again, it so much depends upon the pattern of employment in the neighbourhood.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will now permit local educa- tion authorities to allocate available funds as they think fit and cease to restrict the expansion of nursery education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to assist local education authorities to provide nursery education facilities in their areas.

My right hon. Friend would like to extend nursery facilities when the necessary funds and teachers are available. However, at the present time there can be no general relaxation, but I am looking at the possibility of a limited expansion.

The right hon. Lady would not wish to frustrate local authorities which out of their own resources wish to provide self-financed nursery education, would she?

I am not quite sure what that means. We must consider the teacher position as well, particularly in areas of high population where there is a severe shortage of infant teachers. We are studying all this and I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I will be as happy as other Members of the House when we can make some progress.

Will my right hon. Friend now undertake to withdraw the circular which prevents local education authorities with the resources and with the teachers from setting up nursery classes? Will she look again at the whole problem of training nursery teachers with much more urgency?

I could not promise to withdraw the circular. What we might look at is an extension of the circular to bring other classes in.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to ascertain the total value of properties owned by independent and direct-grant schools situated in England and Wales.

No, Sir.

Is not this the sort of useful information which ought to be gathered by the Government as a preliminary to the process of incorporating the so-called public schools into the genuinely public sector? Will not my right hon. Friend reconsider his rather negative answer?

I have just reconstituted the Public Schools Commission and announced the names. The Commission will now start to look at the independent day schools and the direct grant schools. I have certain powers with regard to these schools, and I can ask them for any information which is relevant to those powers. At the moment, there is no case for extending that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Workers' Educational Association, submitting its evidence to the Newsom Committee, concluded that it would be utterly impractical in Britain in the foreseeable future to endeavour to abolish the independent fee-paying school?

I shall be publishing the first report of the Public Schools Commission shortly, and the House can make up its own mind on that. As I have said, having now been reconstituted, the Commission is looking at the task of integrating the independent day schools and direct grant schools.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give a more precise date for when we may expect the report?

Offhand, I cannot, but I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will seek powers to carry out a pro-science propaganda drive in secondary education; and what steps he is now taking to implement the recommendations made in the Dainton Report to counter the shortage of qualified scientists and mathematicians.

I need no new powers. The Department is conducting a recruiting drive for science and mathematics teachers among students. The Schools Council and the universities have established a joint working party to study the Dainton proposals for the sixth form curriculum. The Schools Council is working closely with the Nuffield Foundation in promoting experiments in new science courses, involving, in the secondary field, 230 schools in 86 areas. New in-service courses for science teachers are to be held at three universities this autumn.

We all accept that my hon. Friend is treating the matter as one of great national urgency, but will she consider further methods by which early interest could be stimulated among boys and girls, particularly girls, in mathematics and science, perhaps by allowing more visits to Government establishments and even by co-operating to a small extent in Government research projects?

The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question raises an interesting idea, which we shall look into. On the first part, we are endeavouring to encourage periods of working experience, not least in scientific establishments and science-based industry, for both boys and girls.

Is it not better that pupils should make the best use of their natural abilities rather than be pressurised into subjects for which they are not suited?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have a much lower proportion of girls taking up mathematics and science than almost any other country in the industrialised world. There may well be other causes apart from the desire not to do science or mathematics.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received against the proposed closure of Kilburn Church of England Primary School; and whether he will now hold a public inquiry into this matter.

Objections have been received from a number of local government electors, from the school managers, and from the Thirsk Rural District Council. It is not the Department's practice to hold public inquiries on matters of this kind, but we shall consider carefully all the representations we receive before reaching a decision.

In view of the widespread local concern, will the right hon. Lady consider receiving a deputation on this matter?

If I receive a deputation on one side, I shall have to receive deputations from other parties who take an opposite view. The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we act in a quasi-judicial manner here, and I could not say today what the result would be.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the estimated population of nursery school age in Portsmouth; how many nursery schools there are in the city; and what is the total number of places available within them.

There were about 10,000 children aged over two and under five in Portsmouth in January, 1967, of whom 726 were attending school. Forty-two of these were in the one nursery school and a Further 81, 12 attending part-time, were in four nursery classes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an indication of the inadequacy of the service? Ought not every encouragement to be given to extend it as rapidly as possible?

Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend will have heard from an Answer to Question No. 4 that we should like to extend it, but we have to have regard to resources and to teacher supply.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) whether the necessary capital expenditure authorisation to adapt and enlarge the Lady Manners School at Bakewell, Derbyshire, has been granted; and if he will make a statement;

As the hon. Member will know, no formal decision has yet been reached on the authority's reorganisation proposals for this area. We have not been able to authorise this project to start this year because of the prior claim of projects to meet more urgent needs.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that many of the secondary schools which are involved in the reorganisation have held back applications for grant or applications for authorisation to extend their own schools, such as the secondary school at Tides well, and will she now, having postponed this particular one, look at the question of whether she could give authorisation for improvements in secondary schools which would have come in with the Lady Manners School if she had authorised it?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set aside £7 million in each of the two years to help reorganisation schemes. For this year, 1968–69, we had to consider applications from those whose reorganisation plans were coming into operation this year or very soon. We still have to consider next year's applications, and I promise that I shall consider this case in the context of next year's £7 million.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will arrange for part-time students in architecture to take their degrees at polytechnics if they so wish.

There are at present no part-time courses leading to a degree in architecture. The possibility of arranging such a course in a polytechnic would initially be a matter for the individual institution, no doubt in consultation with the R.I.B.A. There are four proposals for full-time courses which will have to satisfy the requirements of my Department and of the Council for National Academic Awards.

Cannot the hon. Lady and her Department influence the institution of part-time courses? Full-time courses do not entirely meet the need. There is a shortage of architects—even Ministries are short of architects—and there are many pupils who would like to take up part-time courses. Why should not they have the opportunity?

I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We are anxious that in polytechnics, as they are designated, part-time advanced courses should be recognised to be on all fours with full-time courses, but since no polytechnics have been finally designated there is at present none on which one could bring pressure.

Will my hon. Friend counteract the policy of the R.I.B.A. to put all schools of architecture into the universities? Is she aware that many of us feel that architecture is just the sort of subject which is most suitable for study in polytechnics?

I take my hon. Friend's point, but it is fair to say that in schools of architecture which are not part of universities it is still possible to gain exemption from R.I.B.A. examinations or to take external examinations. I shall bear closely in mind the trend to which my hon. Friend has referred, because it is one which goes wider than the subject of architecture alone.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the Government have refused to support the sending of a United Kingdom team of young mathematicians to this year's international competition to be held in Moscow, after the success of this event in Belgrade last year.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether a decision has now been reached about sending a team of young British mathematicians to take part in the forthcoming Mathematical Olympiad in Moscow.

A team sponsored by the Mathematical Association, with financial help from industry and private individuals, will leave for Moscow to take part in the International Mathematical Olympiad on 7th July. I should like to pay tribute to them both for their public-spirited gesture.

The House will be glad to learn that the Government have changed their mind. What reason can there be for withholding sponsorship for what has now become a very worth-while annual event, which is linked with the British mathematics Olympiad?

My right hon. Friend's predecessor's view was that the public expenditure involved was not justified in relation to the academic return to the education system. The Government have reserved their position as regards future years and have helped in making arrangements for the present visit.

Is the hon. Lady aware of the great stimulus which this competition gives to the groups of our brightest mathematicians scattered about the country, and will she take it that we are grateful to her for the change of heart in the Ministry since she arrived and took an interest in the matter herself?

It is a great stimulus, but I hope that schools will not, as it were, treat it as a coaching exercise but treat it as a general stimulus to mathematical study.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities have not yet submitted schemes for comprehensive reorganisation which envisage the ending of all selection at 11, 12 or 13 years of age by 1975 at the latest.

Authorities were not asked in Circular 10/65 to estimate when they would be able to implement their long-term plans but only to say what they expected to accomplish in the three years 1967–70. Reorganisation is already complete or virtually complete in 18 areas and, in addition, nearly 30 authorities have plans approved which seem likely to come into operation in at least a substantial part of their area by 1970. An estimate of progress in the following five years, which will depend very much on future building programmes, is not practicable.

Does not that Answer indicate that progress towards comprehensive education is rather slower than certain Ministerial statements and Press handouts would indicate?

No, Sir. We have made considerable progress. A total of 111 authorities have now had plans approved. I have in my hands another 23 authorities' plans awaiting approval. Only six authorities have so far refused to submit plans.

Will my right hon. Friend look at the antics of some local authorities which are prepared to smash up comprehensive schools that result from three years' hard work on purely spiteful and doctrinaire, political lines?

I very much regret the withdrawing of viable schools that have been approved. But this is largely ceasing to be a political question in many areas. Indeed, some of the best plans have been submitted by Conservative authorities.

Did not the right hon. Gentleman put his finger on the essential point when he referred to the other resources that can be made available? Is it not quite clear that to have schemes which are educationally soundly based must be dependent on adequate resources, bearing in mind the priorities in the education service as a whole?

That is quite true. It depends on physical resources being made available, and they will be made available over the years. This will take some time, but it is going along quite satisfactorily.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will increase the grants to the University Grants Committee in order that university teachers of improved calibre may be secured.

There is a standing reference of university academic salaries to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In the meantime, I have no reason to suppose that the universities are not attracting their fair share of the best talent.

Do not the standards of a minority of university teachers, whether judged in terms of stability or even loyalty to the institution they serve, sometimes fall below what is tolerable? Is not this unfair to students? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider initiating a study of the demand for university teachers and their supply?

The hon. Gentleman is asking a quite different question. I answered the Question he put. I think that the arrangements for a permanent review of their salaries are adequate to ensure that we get people of the highest calibre.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before we can talk about obtaining university teachers of improved calibre we should have settled rates of salaries? Is he aware that the current claim is seriously delayed, and that that is causing great dissatisfaction in the profession?

I think that it is an exaggeration to say that there is serious dissatisfaction among university teachers. There may be some dissatisfaction, but I have not heard of any excessive pressure about this. As I said, the salaries are permanently referred to the Prices and Incomes Board.

As a small section of university staffs have taken an active part in recent student discontent, would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to institute a full inquiry into the relationships between students, university staff and university authorities?

I am not prepared to institute any such inquiry. I take a very poor view of university staffs allying themselves with illegal action. But, having said that, I think that it is high time the universities put their houses in order as well and gave their undergraduates and junior staffs some say in running the universities. If the universities are to maintain the concept of a self-governing body of scholars, they cannot have second-rate citizens in their community. They must give the junior staff and students a share in the decision-making of all their bodies.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is now his policy towards local education authorities which have not abandoned 11-plus selection for secondary schooling; and whether he will make a statement.

The Government's policy remains unchanged.

Is the report correct that the Secretary of State cannot tolerate local education systems which do not move towards the abolition of selection? Was that speech correctly reported? If so, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to legislate?

I said in a recent speech that the Government could not indefinitely tolerate areas making no move at all towards a comprehensive system, and that is the Government's policy. If the six areas continue to refuse to submit schemes, the Government will seriously have to consider legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is following his predecessor's policies in not allowing any secondary building projects to those authorities which are refusing to go comprehensive?

All the secondary building projects we approve are on the basis of comprehensive reorganisation.

At a time when the building programme for the current year has effectively been cut by about £30 million, is not it quite unreal to suppose that we can advance more rapidly in a comprehensive direction if we are to have educationally soundly based schemes?

The total educational building programme this year is only very slightly less than last year's. There has been no large cut in the overall building programme. Local authorities got approvals for secondary building and improvements, and these must be used on the basis of comprehensive reorganisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what analysis he has made of the value of the third year in colleges of education; and what reforms he proposes to introduce.

Initial teacher training is under continuous review in the colleges, the area training organisations, my Department and Her Majesty's Inspectorate, and the students themselves are playing an increasing part.

I appreciate that the Ministry will keep a close watch on this year by year. Is not there a case for examining it over the years since it started, to see what success it has had and whether it is satisfactory or whether those resources could be diverted elsewhere to better educational effect?

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the third year has added considerably to the quality of teacher training which many of us regard as a very high educational priority. If the hon. Gentleman wants a general inquiry into teacher training, there is a Question on the Order Paper which puts that specific point and which will be answered by my right hon. Friend. If he is concerned about a review of the third year as part of the existing course, I would refer him back to my original Answer. There is a continuous review of the course.

Is the Minister satisfied that sufficient time is being spent in colleges of education on teaching practice, which is of enormous value to their students?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of some of the problems of fitting more teaching practice into schools already absorbing almost as much as they can manage. We would favour more block practice and more experiment with longer periods of practice rather than practice broken up into very short periods.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in view of the restrictions of the public provision of nursery schools, whether he is satisfied that sufficient control exists over the quality of the staff of private nursery schools; and if he will make a statement.

An independent nursery school, if it has at least five children of compulsory school age, must register under Part III of the Education Act, 1944. It then becomes subject to inspection by H.M. Inspectors and my right hon. Friend has power under Section 71 of that Act to require the proprietors to employ staff of a quality to ensure efficient and suitable instruction for the children attending the school. If there are less than five children of compulsory school age it may be registrable under the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act, 1948, and is the concern of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and of the local health authorities.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that explanation of the present position. I believe that some people are disconcerted by the way in which the responsibility for this kind of school or nursery—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.

Is the Minister aware that there is some concern that the responsibility for the care of children of this age group is split between the Ministry of Health and the Department of Education and Science? Could she say something about whether there is sufficient liaison between the two, and whether any changes are envisaged?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right but it is in fact split not in two ways but in three, because the Children's Department of the Home Office also has certain responsibilities in this field. But I agree that there is a split responsibility and perhaps the Seebohm Committee Report will help in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the recommendations of the recent Conference of Headmasters, he will re-introduce corporal punishment as a deterrent to insubordination and juvenile crime.

I have seen reports of the conference referred to by the hon. Member. But they call for no action on my part since I have already made my views clear. I believe that the decision whether or not to administer corporal punishment is one which must be left to the professional judgment of the teacher.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most parents will be grateful to him for reversing the policy of his predecessor? Since 400 headmasters at the Plymouth conference unanimously agreed with him, will he not let his permanent officials deviate from this sensible course?

I have not reversed anything. Having answered the Question as I have, I must point out that I do not accept the premise that corporal punishment is a deterrent to insubordination and juvenile delinquency. Violence in any form, whether legalised or not, is a cause of delinquency and not a deterrent. However, I think that the decision on this matter is one for the individual teacher.

What new scientific evidence has come to light to reverse the Department's policy regarding schools for the handicapped? Will my right hon. Friend send to participants in the Conference, to headmasters of schools for the handicapped and to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), copies of the Home Office Committee's report on corporal punishment which concluded that it is not a deterrent but, on the contrary, escalates the tradition of violence?

There is no new scientific evidence but a new Minister who does not think that it is a good thing to try and tell other people how to do their jobs.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the value of capital projects in university building which were commenced in 1967; what percentage increase this represents compared with 1966; and what estimate he has made regarding the value of building projects to be commenced in 1968.

The university building programme authorised by the Government for the financial year 1967–68 totalled £31·9 million. This represents a reduction of 20 per cent. compared with the 1966–67 programme of £40 million. The building programme authorised for 1968–69 totals £28·7 million.

In view of these disturbing figures, could the hon. Lady say, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's reaction to a recent speech, whether it is the policy of the Department that more emphasis should be put on the primary school building programme as opposed to university building?

I am glad the hon. Gentleman shares my view of the importance of higher education and not that of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Having said that, I add that it is the view of the Government that, at the present time, because of the numbers of children coming forward to the schools, the primary schools must take a full share of the programme and the cuts must therefore fall more heavily on the later stages of education.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress he has made in his discussions on the single school leaving date; and if he will make a statement.

As I said in my reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 2nd May, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is consulting both sides of industry. She hopes to complete her consultations in the very near future.—[Vol. 763; c. 1277.]

I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that it is still the intention to raise the school leaving age in 1973 and that the single school leaving date is regarded as a logical step towards it? There is concern in educational circles that there may be objections to the single date from Government Departments. Will he consult with his right hon. Friend on this matter?

As I have said, we are consulting both the T.U.C., our consultations with which have been completed, and the C.B.I., the consultations with which have not been completed. I agree that this is a desirable thing to do as soon as we can. We should think of the secondary school course in terms of the school year and not in terms of a term. The difficulty, of course, lies in putting the whole year's output of leavers onto the labour market at the same time. The last Government introduced a compromise a few years ago and I hope that we can now take a step forward from that.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many universities in England and Wales have agreed to permit entrants to post pone the taking up of their places in order to enable them to spend periods of time in the Voluntary Service Overseas and other similar organisations after leaving school; how many students awaiting university courses in the current academic year are engaged in this kind of work; and if he will make a statement.

This information is not available in my Department, but I understand from Voluntary Service Overseas that universities generally allowed such postponement for V.S.O. service in 1968–69.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does not he agree that the interval between school and university is a useful maturing influence for many students and something to be encouraged in as many cases as practicable?

I agree, and the Government hope to give every possible encouragement in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will give approval for the necessary extensions at Great Dunmow Secondary School.

We are unable to authorise this school to start this year because of the prior claim of schools to meet more urgent needs. We will be ready to consider it for the 1969–70 programme but I cannot say at this stage what the outcome will be.

What is more urgent than a school where the pupils are being taught in corridors, staff rooms and an abandoned primary school five miles away?

The hon. Gentleman must look at the whole of the Essex building programme and bear in mind that this year Essex will be building £2 million worth of school building, including 15 primary school projects costing £871,000 and seven secondary school projects costing £1,154,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many technical colleges provide courses of teacher training under the aegis of the Council for National Academic Awards.

None, Sir. There is a C.N.A.A. course at Enfield College directed towards serving teachers, but it leads to a degree in social science not in education.

Would it not be useful if such a course were started and made available as widening one of the routes not only to professional qualifications but to a degree in those qualifications?

Yes, I think that it would. Five technical colleges have departments of education and all had the option of choosing these courses or going under university institutes of education. All chose the second route, but it is open to them to choose the C.N.A.A. instead.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will now announce details of the revised major school building programme for 1968–69.

I did so last week.

Having studied the programme since this Question was put down, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the cuts are not so severe that they will not only jeopardise any question of reorganisation for many local authorities but will probably put in jeopardy the policy of roofs over head? What is his policy to meet that difficulty?

I do not think that there is any possibility of any authority in the country not being able to provide roofs overhead. As I have said, the total overall building programme is roughly the same as last year. All that has happened is that the money which was being made available for raising the school leaving age has been deferred.

Is it not the case that anyone reading Circular 6/68 imagines that £88 million of new projects will be allocated this year, irrespective of the value of earlier projects under earlier programmes starting before first April? Is not the decision that only £56 million worth of new projects will be allocated this year causing very widespread dismay among local education authorities?

The right hon. Gentleman is one of the few people who understand the school building programme, and he understands it well. The total programme this year is £129 million, which is a lot of money. In addition, there is a vast amount of building being done. The inner London building programme, for example, is not £1·5 million, as I saw stated in an evening paper last week, but £5·6 million this year. At the moment, over £12 million of educational building work is being done in London. We have to get this into perspective.

In view of the inadequacy of the major building programme, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that there should be full use of the facilities available at independent schools? Will he not, therefore, reverse recent Government policies which have been making it increasingly difficult for parents to afford school fees?

Of course we should like to make use of the facilities of independent schools. If the hon. Gentleman will use his influence with them, we shall be delighted to integrate them into the national system.

Those of us who advocated the setting back of the school leaving age programme did so because we wanted the money spent on primary schools. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the money being spent on them nothing like measures up to the recommendations of the Plowden Report?

Money spent on education is never anywhere near what the enthusiasts would like to spend, but people involved in education, like everyone else, must learn to live within their income.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will state the number of primary and secondary schools in the city of Liverpool whose structure consists of more than 50 per cent. timber frame construction; and if he will list the number of serious fires that have occurred in such Liverpool schools in the past five years;

I am informed by the local education authority that the frame construction of 18 schools includes substantial amounts of timber. In the past five years there have been two serious fires in school buildings of part timber construction.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she not think that two serious fires followed by another serious fire are three fires too many? Will she accept my assurance that after yesterday's council meeting her right hon. Friend will be getting representations from the City of Liverpool? Will she undertake to see that they are given urgent consideration?

I will consider anything from the local authority and we all recognise that if a fire starts, it is worse in a timber building. Nevertheless, I understand that there have been three serious fires in non-timber school buildings in Liverpool. I understand that the local authorities are in constant contact with the fire brigade in Liverpool to minimise the effect of such fires.

Does not the right hon. Lady consider that in the present financial stringency replacement of these timber buildings by brick or other solid buildings should have absolute priority over every other form of education expenditure in Liverpool?

I would need the advice of the experts before committing myself so far.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what reply he has sent to the proposals for secondary reorganization submitted to him by the County Borough of Reading.

We have said that Reading's plan as a whole is unacceptable because it makes no proposals for changing the character of the two county grammar schools.

Did the right hon. Lady hear her right hon. Friend say a moment ago that he did not believe in telling other people how to do their own job? Will she tell him that if he interferes for party political reasons, he will have the fight of his life on his hands?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that in details we should not dictate to people what to do. Nevertheless, it is the general policy of the Government to get rid of selection at the age of 11, and we will not endorse any proposals which leave the grammar schools intact.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her reply will be widely welcomed on this side of the House? Will she urge my right hon. Friend to show the robustness in these matters which he has already shown in his dealings with other local authorities which have shown a reactionary attitude?

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the name of the new Chairman of the University Grants Committee.

As soon as I can complete the necessary consultations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the widespread appreciation of the work of the retiring chairman of the University Grants Committee which is shared on both sides of the House? Will he confirm that he will not be restricted to the university world in his difficult task of finding a successor?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about Sir John Wolfenden. The answer to his second question is, "Yes".

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has now received a plan from the Norfolk County Council to reorganise its educational system on comprehensive lines.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend urge this dilatory council to some action? Is it not high time that it produced some proposals?

I have been in touch with Norfolk County Council and I understand that it is preparing a plan which I hope to receive in the near future.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Norfolk no final decisions about a child's education are taken at the age of 11, that there are all sorts of provisions for late developers and that the urgent priority in Norfolk is to do something about primary education? Is she not aware that Norfolk has a very good network of modern schools, but that the primary system is weak?

Of course primary education is very important, but I understand that Norfolk County Council is preparing a pattern of secondary reorganisation with middle schools for children aged 8 to 12 and upper schools for children of 12 to 18. I fail to see how that can interfere with the provision of primary education in Norfolk.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in the light of the recent dismissal of a medical officer at a Birmingham special school, he will send a circular to all local education authorities, giving guidance as to the duties appro- priate to such officers, particularly in the field of sex education.

No, Sir. Curriculum matters, including sex education, are the responsibility of local education authorities and their teachers; new advice through the revised version of my Department's pamphlet on Health Education will be published on the 31st July. The Birmingham Authority published, in 1967, after consultation with its teachers and doctors, a comprehensive booklet, containing a detailed programme on sex education, upon which it urged action by every school in the city.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this particular case is scandalous? Does he not agree that in this sort of residential school for subnormal children something special is required of local education authorities to look after this side of the education of children?

I do not agree with the adjective which my hon. Friend has used in this case, although there are some disturbing features in the evidence to which I am giving close attention.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now review the present policy of appointing industrialists to serve on public bodies and committees of inquiry set up by the Government.

No, Sir. We shall continue to appoint the best people available.

Does not the Prime Minister recall that when the Minister of Technology sacked the two directors from Bristol Siddeley from holding appointments on public boards, he told the House that those who held Government appointments must enjoy public confidence? As it is now clear that there is no public confidence in the Government, why are not the whole Government sacked?

Will the Prime Minister look at the case of Sir Frank Kearton, who appears to be the subject of victimisation for accepting a Government post, and will he in particular consider the very serious charges which Sir Frank has made against institutions in the City, charges which, if true, could prove to be a major scandal? Will my right hon. Friend consider instituting an impartial inquiry rather than leaving it to the City itself?

I do not think that that statement of Sir Frank Kearton at his Press conference is a matter for me. I am aware that he and his colleagues of the I.R.C. have been subject to serious and unfair attacks because of the activities of I.R.C. It is right to say that he and the whole of the I.R.C. Board enjoy the full confidence of my right hon. Friend and myself and that we support the action which they took, even though it was a matter entirely within their own discretion.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a further statement on reopening negotiations for a Rhodesian settlement.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

I would refer hon. Members to the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Commonwealth Secretary and the Attorney-General in the debate on 17th June.—[Vol. 766, c 728–45, and c. 840–52.]

Now that the third anniversary of the declaration of independence approaches, has the Prime Minister any new offer to make for an approach to Rhodesia to stop the present disastrous drift in our affairs?

On a number of occasions very fair and honourable offers were made. There is no doubt that Mr. Smith would have liked to accept the "Tiger" settlement, but he was driven out of accepting it by extremists in his regime. When one does business with anyone, it is important to know that he will have the power to carry it through.

When will the Prime Minister answer the specific charges of Mr. Dean Acheson and Dr. von Hofmannstal, not to mention my right hon. and learned Friends, that this matter is ultra vires the United Nations and that in referring it the right hon. Gentleman has twisted Chapter 7 of the Charter?

That does not happen to be the view of the United Nations members, or the legal advisers of every one of the many countries which supported that resolution. I prefer the legal advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to any views of the hon. Member.

Will the Prime Minister inform the House to what extent the delay in coming to a satisfactory conclusion in this matter has been contributed to by the open support given to Mr. Smith and his colleagues from the other side of the House, including the Front Bench?

I think that at various times he had high hopes about this and believed a lot of the things he was told about things in this country. However, it is only fair to say that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite and many of their Lordships in another place treated his recent attempt to interfere in our internal affairs with contempt.

Has the Prime Minister read the recent report of the meeting between Mr. Smith and Mr. Jonathan Aitken, in which Mr. Smith declares that he is ready to negotiate? Will he now take a fresh initiative to find an honourable settlement to this unfortunate dispute?

A fair and honourable settlement has been offered for a very long time. It has been refused time and time again. The number of times that we have had this sort of statement that has been made to Mr. Jonathan Aitken is almost beyond counting. When one comes to check, there is always an insistence on some form of braking mechanism.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in view of some recent statements by Mr. Smith and other members of his Government about the kind of constitutional settlement that they have in mind, it is essential to allow the recently imposed sanctions of the United Nations to take effect, before there is any further contact whatever with this régime?

I would agree about the effect of sanctions. The House can make this judgment—the Whaley Commission which, with the wildest stretch of the imagination does not begin to fulfil the six principles, which successive Governments have laid down, was at first endorsed by Mr. Smith, and he was driven off, away from acceptance of that by extremists.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm, that, notwithstanding his policy of sanctions, which so far have not yielded any positive results, it is still his purpose, ultimately, to settle the matter by negotiation and that to this end he is doing his best to keep the door open?

The answer to that question is "Yes".

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any comparison can be drawn between a piece of paper brought back from Salisbury by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and a piece of paper brought back from Munich by his distinguished predecessor?

That would not in any sense be an accurate or fair comparison. For reasons stated in the House, the terms of the paper brought back by the right hon. Gentleman have not been disclosed. There is a difference of opinion between us—[Interruption.] At the request of the right hon. Gentleman the details have not been disclosed, for reasons we understand. It would be quite unfair to suggest that it represented any degree of appeasement, even though we put a different interpretation on it from that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in the course of a necessarily busy and perhaps worrying existence, he has yet found time to read the speech of Mr. Dean Acheson to the American Bar Association, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings)? If he has not, will he undertake to do so?

I have read that speech. I agree with it no more than I agreed with certain other speeches by that very distinguished statesman. I remember a speech he made a few years ago, with which none of us agreed. His latest speech does not represent the legal advice available to this and most other Governments members of the Security Council.

Is there anything to prevent Mr. Smith now informing my right hon. Friend that he accepts the "Tiger" conditions?

There is nothing to prevent him doing that. In some of his statements he has moved towards this kind of position, although in others he is a very long way away from it. The problem is that he was ready to accept the "Tiger" conditions a long time ago, and was pushed off by threats that they would treat him as they treated Winston Field.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will co-ordinate economic policy between the Board of Trade and Foreign Office to take steps to induce compliance by French, Portuguese and South African companies with the United Nations policy on Rhodesia.

Such compliance would be a matter, in the first instance, for the national governments concerned, Sir. The supervision of the implementation of such resolutions is a matter for the Security Council, which is establishing a committee for that purpose.

In order to make sanctions effective should not we and the other members of the United Nations tell those individual companies, such as the Compagnie Pétroles Francaise, who are torpedoeing sanctions, that they must choose between trading with us or Mr. Smith?

Individual companies in a number of countries may have a particular view about their trade with Rhodesia, but I do not think there is any ground for complaint against the French Government in this matter. Now that the sanctions which we have been applying have been applied more widely by other countries, and are being rigorously followed by so many countries, we ought to give more time for these countries to come into line with the United Nations resolution.

Can my right hon. Friend say which other members of the United Nations have passed through their legislative assemblies orders similar to the one passed by this country? What is the position regarding the Federal Republic of Germany, which is not a member of the United Nations? Has it indicated that it intends to abide by the terms of the United Nations resolution?

The answer to the question about Germany is "Yes, Sir". It has given that indication, but not specifically to me. I should want notice of the question—perhaps my right hon. Friend should answer it—about the number of countries which have taken action, although I am not aware of any other countries, having passed a resolution in their elected House, having to face the tomfoolery which we had to face last week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be no longer appropriate for Britain to take part in such international events as the Lisbon Trade Fair at which Rhodesia was represented? Can he say what joint action is being secured through the United Nations?

I think that it would be better to leave these matters to the working of the United Nations machinery. I have referred to the committee of the Security Council. I am not certain that it would be for us to take unilateral action of the kind referred to by my hon. Friend in relation to Portugal, which is a fellow member of E.F.T.A.

Does the Prime Minister really think that the intensification of sanctions against Rhodesia will produce a new moderate opinion in Rhodesia with which we can deal as an alternative to Ian Smith?

I think that there is increasing evidence in Rhodesia that sanctions are having a very serious effect in bringing home the fact that they are now almost totally morally isolated in the entire world, despite their efforts, and indeed their certainty, that they would be a 9-days wonder, and that their action would be recognised by very many other Governments. The hon. Gentleman should be the last to underrate the effects of sanctions, because nobody in Rhodesia is doing so any longer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a Committee upstairs the director of a de jure British company, de facto operating from South Africa, was asked directly whether, if it were agreed to transfer the company to South Africa, he would give an undertaking that it would not invest in Rhodesia and that this gentleman refused to give such an undertaking? Does not my right hon. Friend think that this House should facilitate such legislation?

It does not sound to me very specific evidence. If there is anything that my hon. Friend thinks should be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will do that.

The right hon. Gentleman has always made plain that he and the Government would not enter into any economic confrontation with South Africa over the Rhodesian question. Will he confirm that that is still their position?

There is no change in our policy on that matter or on the other matter about which the right hon. Gentleman was concerned—the use of force.

Would my right hon. Friend instruct the British delegate to ask for a meeting of the Security Council at which the French Government and other Governments can publicly explain what they are doing to restrain the violation of sanctions?

I do not think that there is any need to rush into further meetings of the Security Council. But, as my right hon. Friend will have heard, I have mentioned that the Security Council is establishing a committee for supervising the implementation of these resolutions. Having taken this decision, we should leave it to them and to that committee.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed that fact, is it not nauseating humbug and hypocrisy to pretend that the Government's position is based on any sort of morality whatever?

It was the right hon. Gentleman once who described the Rhodesia issue as a moral issue. We have heard from him before the phrase which he has just used—in December, 1966, after "Tiger", when he supported Mr. Smith and his régime in rejecting the "Tiger" negotiations. If there is any question of hypocrisy, it is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has struggled for two years to get into a position in which he could get the plaudits of the Marquess of Salisbury.

asked the Prime Minister what further measures he proposes for co-ordination of Departmental activities to strengthen the economy and reduce imports.

There is already full co-ordination between Departments on these matters, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that nearly six months ago, on 16th January, following his statement, I asked him what special steps he would take to assist British farms to make the maximum contribution to import saving, then assessed at £250 million a year? Is he aware that that figure has now been confirmed by the Economic Development Council, and that no progress has been made in the enlargement of farming? What new steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to implement the proposals?

That is a fair and important question. The Price Review which followed that statement was itself a contribution to encouraging agricultural production, and therefore import saving. As I told the House before, we are studying all the possibilities of import saving, and what changes might be involved in this area. It is a very important problem which is taking a certain amount of time.

Would my right hon. Friend look again at the system adopted by the Italian Government when facing a rising import bill, of restricting credit and insisting on cash for all imports?

I have heard of this scheme introduced in Italy and I think it has been used by other countries. On the basis of the latest import figures, while they are still giving some concern, my hon. Friend may feel that there is some sign of the import boom moderating.

As the Treasury has said that imports are still, unfortunately, running at a level well above that implied in the Budget forecast, could the Prime Minister arrange for fresh forecasts for the second half of this year and next year to be given to the House?

I have nothing to add to the successive answers given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on Tuesday to the right hon. Gentleman and other right hon. Gentlemen who put that question him. I would remind the House, as my right hon. Friend did, that we went far beyond the practice of any previous Government by making that forecast, and it should be given a longer run to see how these figures turn out.

In view of the continuing seriousness of the position, would my right hon. Friend consider again the proposals which have been put to him on a number of occasions from this side of the House that there should be some sort of physical control over inessential imports?

This suggestion has been made a number of times, and on an equal number of occasions I have given the reasons why we do not feel that it would be helpful. As I have said more than once in this House, I have probably more experience of running import controls than almost any other hon. Member, and I assure my hon. Friend that they are not quite the panacea he thinks.

Has not experience shown that the forecasts of this Government are totally valueless?

We expect better than that from the right hon. Gentleman when he gets up. I seem to remember that he was a member of the Government which said in 1964 that the economic position had seldom, if ever, been stronger.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us are very concerned about the continuing rise in the level of imports, particularly as these reduce the valiant efforts being made by large numbers of firms in this country to improve our export position? Will he therefore undertake to look urgently at the proposals that have been made to introduce selective controls of certain imports in order to correct the balance of payments difficulties that we are now facing? Let us not have another situation of "too little and too late".

I agree with my hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition, that there is certainly nothing to be complacent about in the rise of imports, and also in the fact that for the past five, six, seven or eight years, imports of manufactured goods particularly have been rising at the rate of something like 20 per cent. per annum. Many of these are goods that we are perfectly capable of manufacturing for ourselves, if the opportunities are taken. Since devaluation there is an incentive, but it is probably too early for it to show very much in the figures, because many of these imports were ordered before devaluation.

On a point of order. In view of the serious concern felt on both sides of the House about the vicious withdrawal from the C.E.R.N. 300 GeV project reflected in Questions Nos. 43, 45, 46, 48, 49 and 53, would you, Mr. Speaker, say whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science has asked your permission to answer those Questions—or does he feel that they are not sufficiently important?

I cannot comment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The Secretary of State has not asked Mr. Speaker whether he might answer the Questions.

Further to that point of order—[Interruption.]

Order. The point of order is about nuclear science, not nuclear heat.