HC Deb 09 May 1956 vol 552 cc1364-77

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson (Stirling and Falkirk Burghs)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Teachers' Salaries (Scotland) (Amendment No.3) Regulations, 1956 (S.I., 1956, No.360), dated 13th March, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd March, be annulled. I should like to make it clear at the outset that we are not opposing these Regulations nor the subsequent Regulations—Amendment No.4—on the Order Paper. Indeed, so far as they go and with certain qualifications, we welcome these Regulations.

Mr. Speaker

Is it agreeable that the House take both these Regulations together?

Mr. MacPherson

If it is agreeable to you, Mr. Speaker, that course would be agreeable to hon. Members on this side of the House.

We have just dealt with a Measure, the Finance (No.2) Bill, which is apparently unrelated to the matter that we are discussing now, but there is a certain connection between them. The Chancellor was subjected, in the antenatal stages of the Finance Bill, to some jibing that it would be the Finance (No.2) Bill, doubling our quota of Finance Bills this year. But if we have doubled that quota, we have more than doubled the quota of salary changes among Scottish teachers.

There is a certain amount of unreality in trying to stop these Regulations in full flight in order to discuss them, because the alterations have come so rapidly on previous alterations, and these alterations are to be out of date, I understand, in a few months—probably, if hopes in certain quarters are fulfilled, by October this year.

The first Regulations—mendment No.3—stem from the Appleton Committee's Report, and that stems from the shortage of teachers of mathematics and science. I make no comment on the general question that lies behind the Regulations, except to point out that the Appleton Committee reaffirms what has been affirmed time and time again since the war by other authorities. This is that the shortage of science teachers strikes at the root of national safety and prosperity. We must have that consideration in mind when we are considering the Regulations that are before the House tonight.

The Appleton Committee made recommendations, and I would comment upon its chief ones, concerning salaries. The Committee recommended that Chapter V teachers in mathematics and science, that is, honours graduates in mathematics and science, should have an increase in salary to a maximum of £50 instead of the existing maximum of £960. They recommended that there should be created a group, class or category, of special assistants, or senior assistants, to be engaged in general in the more advanced work in secondary schools. They decided that if those special assistants were sufficiently well paid, the institution of that category would tend to keep mathematics and science teachers in the senior secondary schools, instead of their being driven away to headmasterships in other schools.

The Committee recommended that Article 39 teachers, who are now paid £25a year above the salary of an ordin- ary graduate, should be paid at a figure above that salary ranging from—25 in their earlier years of work up to—95. Article 39 teachers are ordinary graduates who have taken additional qualifications in individual subjects, and whom the Appleton Committee therefore called sub-specialists.

The recommendations were made in regard to mathematics and science teachers. The National Joint Council, which has made recommendations to the Secretary of State and whose recommendations appear in these Regulations, decided that the increase in salaries should apply not only to mathematics and science teachers, but to other specialist teachers, and these Regulations are so applicable. We do not disagree with that; indeed we welcome it.

It is imposible in a small community to separate people qualified in one subject and pay them at a significantly higher rate than people of the same academic standing in another subject. Furthermore, if a school produces good science students, they are produced not simply by the science or mathematics teachers, but by whole groups of teachers on the staff who have given those students a good education.

Beyond that, the main change which the Regulations make in the Appleton proposals is to water down the increases. The Appleton Committee's suggestion about Chapter IV teachers, for example, was that their salaries should rise to £150 as a maximum instead of £960. That recommendation was made having in view the fact that the main competition for those teachers was industry, and that salaries paid at comparable ages to people with comparable qualifications in industry were considerably greater than the figure of £50 would suggest. From the age of 40 to 60, according to Appendix IV of the Appleton Report, the difference between the salaries of teachers and industrial employees with similar qualifications ranges roughly from about £300 in favour of the industrial people to more than £600 a year at the top.

The Appleton Committee's suggestion, therefore, was to adopt a figure well below the corresponding figure in industry, but the Regulations give not £150, but £1,060. The Committee did not specify the figure for special assistants. It said simply that if they are sufficiently well paid, the institution of those assistants could do a good deal of good in a certain way. Those assistants are to be given £55 a year additional to the basic salary, and one wonders whether such a figure is sufficient to do the job which the Appleton Committee wanted to do; namely, to encourage these teachers to stay in secondary school teaching science and mathematics, rather than seek headmasterships in other schools where their mathematics and science qualifications would not be so useful to the nation.

Instead of the Article 39 teachers receiving from £25 to £95 additional to the basic yearly salary, as the Appleton Committee suggested, they will receive from only £25 to £55 In the first and third cases the increases have been considerably watered down and in the second case, where the Appleton Committee did not give a specific figure, the figure proposed does not seem at all likely to do the job.

Regulations—Amendment No.3—not only alter certain salary figures, but also make some change in the salary structure, and that change, on the whole, I welcome. They tend to lengthen the salary structure—in the current jargon, to increase differentials—and that I believe is needed just as much in the teaching profession as in other walks of life.

The Amendment, No.4 Regulations, take the figures which I have just mentioned and the figures of all other teachers and add to them a 7 per cent. increase. With that, again, I find myself in agreement. The suggestion that the increase should be a flat rate instead of a percentage does not seem to me so sensible as a percentage increase. It would have destroyed the balance in the scale along which salaries are arranged. I think that the Government were wise to adopt the percentage rather than a flat rate increase.

I have one or two comments to make about the general features of these Regulations. The obvious question that arises is whether the Regulations will attract into and keep enough teachers of the right quality in the schools. This is where a certain element of unreality makes itself even more obvious than elsewhere, because one does not know what changes will take place in the scales within a matter of a few months.

It seems to me that there are problems inherent in the salary structure which these Regulations leave unchanged. The length of time which it takes for a teacher to reach his maximum salary is one of the deterrents to the recruitment of suitable young people into the teaching profession. Nothing is being done about that.

These two sets of Regulations do not do a great deal for the ordinary graduate who, if I may use a completely new metaphor, is in many ways the backbone of Scottish education. There has been a considerable tendency in recent years for the ordinary graduate to be pushed into the background. There is now a need for the work of the ordinary graduate among pupils in their later years of primary school to receive more recognition than it has received up to now. In matters of this sort, the tendency has been for Under-Secretaries, Joint or otherwise, to reply very largely in terms of finance.

The important consideration here is, it seems to me, to remember the starting point of this whole business. We should remember that in the case of mathematics and science teachers we are dealing with one of the really crucial points, not merely of educational development, but of the economic development of the country in the post-war period. It is highly desirable that, instead of using finance as our measuring rod, we should in this field begin to use a far more realistic measuring rod. I know that the House is accustomed, with great justification, to using finance as a measuring rod of policy, but, in view of its economic as well as its cultural importance, I am not sure whether that is sound in education today, and I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will address himself more to the underlying questions than simply to the financial question.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor (West Lothian)

I beg to second the Motion.

It was moved very ably and comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson), and the House will be relieved to hear that I do not pro- pose to deal with it with the same highly technical skill and eloquence with which he gave the details to us. I could not pretend to do so, because I am not a teacher; my interest is merely as a parent, and in that respect educationists may be inclined to shudder in sympathy with the exasperated teacher who said that the only people who were not fit to have children were parents.

I wish to deal specifically with Regulation No.3 in Statutory Instrument No.360, because the proposed scales seem to me to have one or two obvious injustices. For a few moments—I intend to speak for only a very few moments—I want to make a plea for the graduates who teach in primary schools and who appear to be omitted from these proposed increases.

The fact that they are teaching in primary schools does not mean that these graduates are demoting themselves to a lower standard. Teaching in a primary school may well be regarded as real teaching—a more difficult teaching job than teaching in secondary and higher grade schools, where a text book is often given to a pupil, who is told to swot up his subject and present papers on it. The teacher in a primary school has a very difficult and most important job in moulding the minds of the children during their most impressionable years, and there are cases of ambitious young teachers, who hope to become headmasters, who deliberately choose to get experience in primary schools. It is rather an injustice that they should have to sacrifice £1 a week on these scales to obtain that experience.

I will not go into the details of the various grades of graduate which we rather tortuously observe in Scottish education, but if we are to give increases to graduate teachers because they are graduates, it ought to apply to all graduates, and it is an injustice to leave out those who choose to teach in primary schools, frequently from the highest educational motives.

I want, next, to refer to the specialist art teachers in the schools of Scotland, who are omitted from the scales in Regulation No.3. It seems to me that this is an unjust omission because the specialist art teacher cannot possibly obtain a degree in a Scottish university in the kind of subject which he wishes to teach; there is no recognised degree in any of the Scottish universities. He therefore has to take the only possible course open to him—to take a course in the College of Arts. This course is of the same duration, by and large, as the course of training for any other category of teacher, but art teachers do not seem to be covered by the increases—merely because they are not graduates of a Scottish university but are holders of a diploma from a central institution.

The teachers naturally regard this as a rather unjust discrimination, on purely technical grounds, and I think that there is some justice in their case. I am aware that in making a special claim for one section of non-graduate specialist teachers I am rather sticking my chin out, because there are so many other grades of non-specialist teachers, those in handicraft and physical training, for example, who may well regard themselves as being similarly unjustly treated. But the length and nature of the training which the specialist art teacher has to undergo places him in rather a special category more easily comparable with the graduate teachers. And for those two very narrow sections of the teaching profession in our great Scottish educational structure I make the plea that they should be included.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)

I should like briefly to draw attention to some anomalies that have been created for teachers in further education by the Teachers Salaries (Scotland) (Amendment No.3) Regulations which are before us tonight. As my hon. Friend, the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) said, these Regulations arise out of the Appleton Report, which was concerned with increasing the number of teachers of mathematics and science in Scotland.

The reason why we want more teachers of mathematics and science is that the country is very short of technicians, technologists and scientists. It seems rather curious that a Regulation which should have come before us as a result of that section of the Report should have as one of its by-products the worsening of the relative position of those teachers in our trades colleges, and other further educational centres, who are so intimately connected with the training of our students.

The result of these Regulations is a worsening of the position of the teachers in further education in three different categories. In the first place, the Regulations raise the salaries of honours graduates by about £100 at the maximum, but in further education similarly qualified teachers have their salaries raised by only £50at the maximum. The ordinary graduates have, by these Regulations, an increase which varies between £25and £55 depending on length of service, and so on. But for similarly qualified teachers in further education there is no increase.

Perhaps the greatest anomaly of all is the one that affects the principals and deputy principals of these further education centres, the key men at trades centres. The headmasters and other people with positions of responsibility in the secondary schools enjoy the £100 increase which I have already mentioned. But few principals and deputy principals who have their salary calculated on a differentBasis—not on a basis of basic salary plus responsibility payment—get no increase out of these Regulations. Thus there is the position that not only are there anomalies between teachers in further education and teachers in secondary schools, but there is this anomaly within the further education system itself, so that the principal or deputy principal finds himself in a position of not receiving an increase that has been given to similarly qualified subordinates; and I think that is undesirable.

It can be asked why further education salaries are not being increased on the same scale as those in the secondary schools, and I should be interested to hear what is the Joint Under-Secretary's explanation of that. I have made some inquiries, and one explanation given to me is that as a result of the Appleton Report, the whole of the scales of further education salaries were put on a national and much improved basis a little more than a year ago, and that when that was done cognisance was taken of the kind of effect that the proposals might have on the salaries of other teachers.

If it is so, that is a curious explanation, because the national scales for further education teachers were published in January of this year—after 12 months of hard negotiation—and the Appleton Report came out only in March last year. It seems unlikely, therefore, that that explanation can be valid.

The effect of the anomalies created by these Regulations for teachers in further education is that the differentials are cut. Those increased payments which were given to teachers in further education were given for the best of reasons. I have mentioned the need we have to encourage trades colleges and the training of technicians. Teachers in those institutions have some disadvantages vis-à-vis teachers in ordinary schools. They have longer hours, shorter holidays, more responsibility; they undertake both day and evening work, they have greater difficulty in relation to the register with regard to various pupils and so on. It is for those reasons that this increased salary was recognised in the salary scale last year, and the differential was not one that went in any way beyond the extra work and the extra responsibility involved.

For those reasons I think that the Minister ought to look with great care at the position of the teachers in further education in relation to future salary increases which are now under consideration. The whole scale of salaries for teachers in Scottish education is receiving urgent consideration. What we now have before us is an interim increase.

If I may say so, the Minister has a special responsibility to teachers in further education—to teachers like art teachers and other small classes of teachers—because, with the best will in the world, the organised body representing teachers is bound to take greater cognisance of those teachers forming the biggest groups. That places a special responsibility on the Minister to take some special care of those small bodies of teachers who may not be able to make their claims quite so forcibly.

Therefore, while I also give my general support to these two sets of Regulations and would not divide against them, I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of this special group of teachers who are training our future technicians, and that some effort will be made in the new salary scales now being negotiated to put right the anamolies to which reference has been made.

11.14 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart)

I think it is a very good thing that we have had this debate tonight on these Regulations. I am very glad to hear that they meet with the general approval of hon. Members opposite. Indeed, that is what one would have expected, because in both cases we have done more or less what the National Joint Council advised and what the Appleton Committee recommended.

The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) was, of course quite right in saying that in a sense there is something slightly unrealistic about the debate, because these Regulations refer to increases of salary for certain specific limited purposes. As the House knows, we normally make our fundamental salary changes every three years, and it is unusual in a single triennium to have alterations in salary. It happens in this particular triennium for a variety of reasons.

These Regulations—Amendment No.3 and Amendment No.4—added to the two which were tabled last year, will make four changes, each of them necessary in its own way. The first of these Amendments arises out of the Report of the Appleton Committee. That Committee was set up in 1953 by my right hon. Friend to deal with the extremely serious deficiency of science and mathematics teachers. We thought it right that the Committee's recommendations should be sent immediately to the National Joint Council for examination and advice. That was done. The National Joint Council took some time. I think properly, to examine the recommendations. It then put proposals to us. By and large the Amendment No.3 Regulations reflect the recommendations made to us.

The hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs asked whether these Regulations will do the job. Will those increases keep the science masters whom we have, and attract students? I cannot say certainly that they will, but we hope they will add to the attractions. These are only one of many methods we are adopting to attract more highly qualified teachers of mathematics, and science.

It will be recollected that from the beginning of this year these teachers have been deferred from National Service. We are doing our best at the universities to persuade students to undertake teaching, and in a variety of other ways which it would not be proper to discuss tonight, we are doing our utmost. We are adopting every expedient put to us, and some which we have suggested ourselves, to increase the supply of these especially important people. We can only hope that the result will be satisfactory.

It is true that whereas the Appleton Committee made certain recommendations about salaries, these Amendments suggest smaller increases. The reason for that was that the National Joint Council thought it would be unwise, and the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs agreed, to confine the increases to science and mathematics teachers. He thought it right that the increases should go to all honours graduates. I was glad to hear him say so. That meant that the butter had to be spread over a much wider area. Therefore there was a little less to go to the pure scientists. However, we did not save money through that step. On the contrary we spent more. The Appleton proposals would have cost£370,000. Our proposals will cost£500,000. It is not a cheeseparing alteration which we have made.

It is true that there has been this watering down of salaries, but I hope it is realised that on 1st April the Appleton increases took place on the same day as the 7 per cent. increase. These honours graduates on 1st April received increases higher than the Appleton proposals. Two sets of figures illustrate that. For honours graduates the Appleton Committee's recommendations would have produced a maximum salary of £1,150. Actually, on the 1st April that same honours graduate was getting £1,134, so that he is better off than he would have been under the Appleton Committee's recommendations alone.

The sub-specialist teacher under the Appleton plan would have received £905. His salary rose on 1st April to £922. So both classes do a little better. As to the special assistants—

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson

It is a very small matter, but the hon. Gentleman is surely wrong about the Chapter V people. They do not do quite so well under the additional 7 per cent. as they would have done under the Appleton recommendation. They get £1,134 as against £1,150.

Mr. Stewart

I do not think that the hon. Member and I are talking about exactly the same thing. The figures I gave were a combination of the Appleton award and the 7 per cent.

Mr. MacPherson

I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that under a combination which produces £1,134 they did better than under the straight Appleton recommendation, which was £1,150.

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Member is quite right. Under the Appleton award the figure would have been £1,150 but actually is £1,134.

I think that the hon. Member suggested that by giving special assistants the additional £55 we should be doing less than the Appleton Committee had in mind. That is not so. The Committee had in mind just about that figure. It arose in this way the payment of £55 is designed to encourage the youngish honours graduate to stay at senior secondary schools rather than take posts of responsibility as perhaps a principal teacher in a junior secondary school, which would carry a payment of £40. It was thought by the Appleton Committee that a payment on the level actually prescribed would secure an adequate redeployment of honours graduates. There is not very much in that, but that is how it came about.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how many honours graduates are actually acting as principals in junior secondary schools?

Mr. Stewart

Not without notice, but I will certainly send the hon. Member such figures as I have.

Mr. Ross

I am surprised that there are any.

Mr. Stewart

Let us correspond, and then we shall know.

We have to realise that both sets of Regulations are interim steps. We have to await the final recommendation that will be made by the National Joint Council and the final proposals which the Secretary of State will make to the House. The National Joint Council has a great many considerations to take into account before it arrives at its final conclusions, some time in the summer or autumn of this year. For example, the matters raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) are very much in its mind. It is quite obvious that the relativities have been changed by these two sets of Regulations and that some people, relative to others, are not so well off. The art teachers are a case in point, and there may be other cases that one could cite.

The hon. for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) raised, for example, the question of the graduate in the primary school and he referred also to the art teacher. The positions of all these groups of teachers are now being examined by the National Joint Council. As the House well knows, one of the troubles with technical teachers up to now has been to put them in their right relationship with one another. It is very difficult. We have not yet found the answer. There has always been a dispute as to whether this person is equal to that person. We do not know, and therefore we have set up a special committee whose job is to consider these people and their proper relationship to one another.

It will be a good thing when that is done. The idea is that this Committee will report to the Secretary of State and he in turn will pass the report to the National Joint Council, which will therefore have it before it makes its final determination. One hopes that we should—by October or whenever the National Joint Council may report to us—have proposals for bringing about a full review of Scottish teachers' salaries which will really stand examination and which will balance one group of teachers as against another. One hopes that it will propose further increases, probably all round. I was most glad to hear the view of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs that we should increase the differentials. The House must recognise that if we are to make teaching a more attractive profession to the best people, the top people in the profession must be paid more money. The difference between what is paid to the lower levels and the higher levels must be wider; the concertina must be extended. I feel that that view is generally accepted by the House, and I am sure that it is the right one.

I should, therefore, be somewhat disappointed if the National Joint Council, in its final recommendations, does not carry that process of differentials further. I hope that I have answered most of the questions which have been put, and I hope that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs will feel it possible to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker

I take it that the hon. Member does not desire to move the second Motion?

Mr. MacPherson

No, Sir.