§ 11.4 p.m.
§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)I beg to move, in page 3, line 38. after 'Labour', to insert:
'or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as may be determined by the committee,'.The Amendment raises a matter of major principle. The Minister will remember that we moved a similar Amendment in Committee and that on Second Reading we gave notice of our intention to move an Amendment on these lines and explained why we felt that the Government's proposal regarding the arbitration machinery to be introduced in Clause 3 was completely unacceptable to us.It may be helpful to remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. It is, broadly, to bring up to date and to improve the machinery for discussing and recommending the scale of teachers' salaries in Scotland. The Bill naturally provides a form of machinery to be observed in the event of any dispute and the proposal which the Government make in Clause 3 is that in the event of any dispute the Minister of Labour would be required to appoint arbiters to determine it. If there were no existing machinery of arbitration in Scotland it would be reasonable for the Government to propose that the Minister of Labour should be responsible for the appointment of arbiters. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the Minister of Labour is responsible for the appointment of arbiters in many other circumstances in which disputes might arise.
The fact, however, is that there is already machinery for arbitration in Scotland, a system which is purely Scottish in character and which has the complete confidence of employers and teachers who in the past have been involved in arbitration matters. There is complete confidence in the present system by which the Lord President of the Court of Session, in the event of a dispute appoints arbiters. The Lord President of the Court of Session is the 1490 head of the Scottish judiciary. He may be compared with the Lord Chief Justice in England and has some of the functions of the Master of the Rolls. He is always a man of the utmost eminence in law and public life in Scotland.
For many years when a dispute has arisen the Lord President of the Court of Session has appointed arbiters. Invariably the findings of those arbiters, which have varied in their nature, have been accepted by the negotiating committee and invariably the teachers have had complete confidence in the arbiters appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. If there were no existing system of arbitration it would be reasonable for the Government to make the proposal in the Bill, but an excellent system already exists and has the complete confidence of all concerned in arbitration. I stress the word "confidence", because our whole argument rests upon it. If arbitration is to work the system must have the confidence of those for whom the arbitration is set in motion.
There is no doubt at all that teachers in Scotland have the utmost confidence in the present system. Why in those circumstances do the Government propose to change it? I have asked this question before and ask it tonight because we have not yet had a reply, or at least not one which makes sense. Why scrap a system which has the confidence of the teachers, a system which is peculiarly Scottish and which is liked and respected by the Scottish people for whom the system of arbitration works?
I must warn the Under-Secretary that if he does not give a satisfactory reply to this matter tonight, teachers in Scotland will suspect the motives of the Government. I have gone over this argument before and I do not want to go over the details again.
The teachers in Scotland are asking why it is that the Secretary of State wishes to get rid of a system in which they have such complete confidence. They are particularly asking why it is that the Secretary of State, in the event of a dispute, would call in his Ministerial colleague, the Minister of Labour, to appoint arbiters to determine a dispute in which the Secretary of State would be involved. I urge the Minister to give thought to 1491 this and to recognise that the only way in which he can keep the confidence of the teaching profession is by changing the proposal in Clause 3.
Originally in Committee we proposed simply that the Minister of Labour should be removed from Clause 3 and the Lord President of the Court of Session should be introduced, in order to maintain the status quo. For procedural reasons which the Minister will understand we have amended this proposal somewhat, and in the Amendment before us we propose that there should be an element of choice in the matter, and that the arbiters should be appointed either by the Minister of Labour or by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and that the negotiating committee should decide which of these authorities should be appointed arbiters.
Equally, the Minister will understand that our preference is for the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Minister has already told us why he believes that the Minister of Labour would be a fair and impartial person to appoint fair and impartial arbiters. On this side of the House we do not quarrel with that at all. What he says would make a great deal of sense if there were no existing arbitration system. If he were stepping in to fill a void this would be a good way of doing it.
But the void does not exist, because a system of arbitration is in existence. If the Minister is to try to force this Clause through he must persuade the House that the change in the system is desirable. Why does the Minister propose to dispose of the services of the Lord President of the Court of Session? Does he suggest that the Lord President is unable to appoint arbiters fairly? Does he say that the head of the Scottish judiciary does not have the capacity to choose impartially? Is he maintaining that the Lord President is partial in these matters? What is wrong with the present system? He has not told us. Why should the Lord President be removed completely from the process in which he has played such a dignified and impartial part in the past?
I have come to the conclusion that in drafting this Bill, which in other respects is so excellent, the Minister overlooked, or forgot, or ignored the fact that a system 1492 of arbitration already existed. I say that because I notice that the terms of Clause 3 are almost precisely the same as the terms of the equivalent clause in the English Bill of 1965. I have already pointed out to the Minister, and I point out to the House, that subsection 1 is, word for word, the same as in the English Bill. Subsections 2 and 3 are virtually the same as in the English Bill.
The only change is the introduction of the Scots word "arbiters" in place of the English word "arbitrators". Why is this so? I believe that this lends support to the suspicion that we have on this side of the House that the Minister ignored an excellent system already existing, and lifted from the English Act the arbitration provision, which may make sense in England, but makes no sense at all in Scotland. Now he is obstinately sticking to the drafting which, over and over again, we have shown to be completely wrong and unacceptable in Scotland.
11.15 p.m.
I said earlier that, in other respects, the Bill is an excellent one. I urge the hon. Gentleman to review his position again, even at this late stage. If he insists on steamrollering the very proper objection of teachers in Scotland and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, not forgetting the views of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends on his own side, he is likely to lose the confidence on which the very success of this Bill depends.
I cannot emphasise enough that, in Scotland, we are approaching with frightening speed a crisis in education. The year 1970–1, when the school leaving age is to be raised, approaches us very quickly. If we are to meet the enormous challenge of that year, it is critical that the confidence of the teaching profession should be held. If the Minister clings to his obstinate view, that confidence may be weakened, and I put it no higher than that. If confidence is weakened, the whole panoply of the educational scene will be endangered.
I ask the hon. Gentleman, even now, to tell the House not how good the Minister of Labour is, because that is not the argument, but why it is that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not capable or equipped, in the view of the Government, to appoint arbiters, as he 1493 has done for years past. What is wrong with the present system, and why does the hon. Gentleman wish to change it? Why is it that this Whitehall-dominated Government again propose to scrap a purely Scottish system, working in a purely Scottish context for Scottish education?
The Under-Secretary has given us no answer yet. I fear that he will not give us an answer tonight. If he does not, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press this important matter of principle to a Division.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI wish to support the very forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Time and again in Committee, the Under-Secretary tried to explain how good the Ministry of Labour system was. That was something we never questioned; yet his winding-up speech was devoted to that subject. Therefore, I ask him tonight to devote himself to the questions which have been posed, and not to go back over questions which we on this side of the House have ourselves already answered.
We want to know what is wrong with the present system. Only if he can answer that will he go any way to convince us. If he had, for example, used the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Scottish Teachers' Salaries, which was published last May and which talked of a uniform system, we might have thought that there was a logical reason. But he was frightened to quote that Government paper, and we all know why.
The hon. Gentleman has called nothing in aid to support his case for altering the present system. There seems to be no logical reason for it, except the desire to be uniform and take his orders from Whitehall.
§ Sir Myer Galpern (Glasgow, Shettleston)I intervene briefly to renew the request which I and some of my hon. Friends made to the Under-Secretary during the discussion on the principle of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has challenged my hon. Friend the Under-Secre- 1494 tary to say whether or not he has fears that the Lord President of the Court of Session is somehow incompetent to appoint arbiters. However, I think that my hon. Friend has already given his answer. In the course of our proceedings in Committee, he said:
The fact still remains that this is a field in which he has no experience and in which, in the strict sense of the term, he has no particular competence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Grand Committee, 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]I think that that criticism is wholly unjustified, but that was my hon. Friend's answer. I have many years' experience in dealing with teachers, and I find that this has aroused more anger and resentment among them than one would reasonably expect. They have read my hon. Friend's statement, and it has been thrown at me because, unfortunately, I was not selected to be a member of the Committee even though I put forward this criticism when we discussed the principle of the Bill. They resent this slander on the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session. They fear, and I think with every reason, that there is something sinister behind the change. I do not agree with them, but this is the impression they get from my hon. Friend's remarks about the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session.The system which we are asking the Government to retain has been in operation since 1945. Since then there have been four arbitrations, and they have not all gone in favour of the teachers. It is therefore not the case that if we retain the existing machinery the teachers will necessarily benefit from it. They have not always done so, but they are nevertheless rightly dubious about, and critical of, my hon. Friend's failure to give a cogent and relevant reason for effecting this change.
I have never before come across such stubbornness on the part of a Minister in the face of the almost unanimous criticism voiced when the principle of the Bill was discussed. Despite the sincerely held views expressed by Members on both sides of the House that there should be no alteration in the machinery for arbitrations, my hon. Friend seems determined to go ahead with his proposal. I appeal to him, even at this late hour, to give some consideration to the 1495 teachers who are doing their best under the most difficult circumstances. Their confidence has been severely shaken, and I ask him not to give it another jolt so that they feel that the teaching profession is going to be shot at by the Scottish Office on every possible occasion. Unless the Minister accedes to our request this evening, the feeling will be created in the minds of teachers that the teaching profession is not worth the candle.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan)We argued this matter at some considerable length in Committee, and in fact the arguments which all three hon. Members have used this evening are really very much more relevant to the two Amendments which were not selected than to the one which was. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did not explain what the effect of the Amendment would be, but I shall, I hope, remedy that deficiency a little later.
Perhaps I might deal with some of the more general arguments which I agree are certainly more important than perhaps the strict terms of the Amendment. As I have said, this matter was discussed exhaustively in Committee, but I am perfectly happy to rehearse some of the arguments that I used there.
All three hon. Members have in one way or another said that they are not arguing against the Ministry of Labour system as such. In fact, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire rather gave the impression that that had never been a matter of argument at all, and it was simply a question whether the teachers had confidence in the present system of arbitration. That is a wholly inaccurate account of the objections to the system proposed by the Government as they were originally outlined by the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Originally there was a suggestion that the Ministry of Labour had no experience in the kind of field with which it would be dealing here. There was also a suggestion that since the Minister of Labour was a colleague of the Secretary of State for Scotland he might act with bias, or be thought to act with bias, in the appointment of arbiters, and that in some sort of way the arbiters appointed would be partial to the Secretary of State 1496 and not discharge their duties with complete impartiality.
A further suggestion was made that the Ministry of Labour procedure was inappropriate because this was a case in which the Government would be meeting a large part of the bill for any increase in teachers' salaries, and that this, again, cast some doubt on the partiality or impartiality of the arbiters appointed.
None of these arguments stood up to scrutiny. I dealt with them in the Second Reading debate and in Committee. It is interesting to note that none of them is now being used. They were the original arguments which the E.I.S. —the only teachers' body to object to the new procedure—put up. They are not the arguments which the hon. Member used tonight, and we should have that on the record as a matter of strict accuracy.
§ Mr. MacArthurI did not advance those arguments tonight, but I could have done so. I do not believe that the teaching profession in Scotland will have confidence in the system proposed by the hon. Member. One reason is that the system of arbitration which he proposes would not be seen to be impartial. I would gladly rehearse tonight the arguments previously raised, but I am now asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us why he regards the Lord President of the Court of Session as incapable of running a fair arbitration system, especially one in which the teachers already have confidence.
§ Mr. MillanThat intervention did not add anything to what the hon. Member originally said. It does not answer my point that the ground on which this proposal is being objected to has been changed considerably during the course of our discussions.
§ Mr. MacArthurThe hon. Member is quibbling.
§ Mr. MillanI am not quibbling. The hon. Member neither mentioned the original arguments this evening nor accepted the original argument that the involvement of the Ministry of Labour somehow casts considerable doubts on the impartiality of the procedure. The basic argument put up by the hon. Member this evening was based on the question, "Why make any change in the 1497 existing system?" If we were to accept that argument we would not have any Bill. We are making considerable changes in the method by which negotiations to settle teachers' salaries are conducted. It is very difficult to understand why this part of the machinery—which is by no means the most important part—should hang over from the previous situation without any kind of examination as to its relevance, especially in the situation which will arise when the new machinery is in operation.
The new system involves a complete change of circumstances. For example, there will be participation of the Secretary of State in the negotiating machinery. The Secretary of State will be committed to the agreements reached in the negotiating machinery; he will be committed, except in exceptional circumstances, to the decisions of the arbiters, when they are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances from those which exist at present.
I have been asked why I think that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not the appropriate person to appoint arbiters under the new system. The hon. Gentleman gave part of the answer when he said that, if there were no system of arbitration, if we were introducing something new, he would have no objection to our system.
11.30 p.m.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) should be disturbed about this. In the strict sense of the term, the Lord President has no competence in appointing arbiters for salary negotiations. I should be distressed if that remark, which I used in Committee, were taken out of context, but that is what my hon. Friend has done. If he had read the rest of the paragraph he would have seen that I was not suggesting that the Lord President did not exercise his present function with the highest distinction and judgment. I then made the remark which my hon. Friend quoted out of context.
I said further that, in the strict sense of the term competence, the function of appointing arbiters was not something which he was called upon to have to fulfil his high office, and that therefore he was in a different position from 1498 arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour. In the light of that complete quotation, any suggestion that I was questioning the ability or judgment of the Lord President is completely unfair. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should have quoted that sentence without taking account of the rest—
§ Sir M. GalpernIn the rest of that quotation, my hon. Friend said:
… and in that respect he is in a different position from arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee; 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]The innuendo is that the arbiters he would appoint are different from those appointed by the Minister of Labour.
§ Mr. MillanOf course they are. My hon. Friend ought to know the kind of arbiters likely to be appointed by the Minister of Labour and those who have been appointed by the Lord President. I have never pretended that they are likely to be the same people. I made this explanation in Committee, but it bears repetition since my hon. Friend and others apparently have not read what I said.
The Lord President appoints three people completely independently—any-one he likes. The Minister of Labour would appoint an independent chairman after consultation with both sides of the negotiating committee. There would be no question of his acting completely independently or in an arbitrary sense. The other two members would be selected one from a panel considered suitable by the teachers and the other from a panel considered suitable by the management.
It is difficult to see why that kind of procedure should arouse any suspicion that the Minister of Labour would make appointments with partiality. This kind of system, which is common elsewhere, would result in a panel of arbiters competent in the field and acceptable to both sides of the negotiating committee. If we were proposing a violation of justice and fair play, I would expect the members of the new panel to object violently to our proposals. But that is not true even of the other two teachers' organisations, not to mention the local authority representatives on the negotiating committee. I therefore do not accept that 1499 the kind of arrangements which we are proposing here will not have the confidence of the new negotiating committee. It is true that the E.I.S. has had these objections, but I do not believe that they are shared in any way by the other members of the negotiating committee, and certainly not held to the same extent as they seem to be held by the E.I.S.
The Amendment is defective for a number of reasons. It is important that the arbitration arrangements, whatever they may be, should be settled before the committee begins working. It would clearly be undesirable that we should wait to settle the arbitration arrangements until a situation had arisen in which one side or the other of the committee wished to go to arbitration. That would obviously be a very undesirable situation because we might then find that the committee was unable to agree on the kind of arbitration that it wanted and we should be in a position of deadlock.
It is therefore necessary to settle the question of the arbitration arrangements now, or at least at an early stage in the functioning of the committee, and that it is provided for by the Secretary of State having power to make the arrangements after consultation under subsection (2) with the prospective or actual members of the panel. These consultations have already taken place on an informal basis and they will be put on a formal basis when the Bill becomes an Act. Whatever the results of these formal consultations, the arrangements which are to be reached about arbitration have to be certain for the reasons which I have outlined at the start of the committee and they cannot be left until later.
If the Amendment were effective—and I do not believe that, strictly, it would be effective—in doing what I understand the sponsors would like it to do, it would introduce an element of uncertainty into the arrangements. At the point at which arbitration was to be used, one would not be certain what the exact form of the arbitration would be. That would be wholly undesirable and completely unworkable because a situation might then arise in which there was no agreement about the form of arbitration. We have to make up our minds about this now.
1500 This matter has been dealt with at great length on Second Reading and in Committee, and tonight I have again gone over the arguments. I listened carefully to everything that was said, but no attempt was made to meet the case that I put, particularly in Committee, and none of the arguments that I developed there has been answered effectively. Indeed, no attempt has been made to answer them. I therefore must ask the House to reject the Amendment and to stick to the proposals which the Government have made in the Bill.
§ Mr. MacArthurThe failure has been completely on the Minister's side because he has given not one effective word of reply to the Amendment. He spoke of the uncertainty which would arise if the Amendment were accepted. While what he said is correct, he will accept it from me that this precise form of wording had to be adopted for procedural reasons of which he is well aware.
If he wished to have certainty, all that was necessary for him to do was to say that at the next stage of the Bill in another place the Lord President of the Court of Session would be introduced in place of the Minister of Labour in Clause 3 as the person who appoints arbiters. The point which he well knows we are making would have been met, and this would have represented a great advance and would have held out much brighter prospects of the Bill working successfully in the future.
The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me, nor I believe my hon. Friends, of the reason why he wishes to dispose of the Lord President of the Court of Session. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) supporting us yet again on this point. He quoted some of the words used by the Minister at an earlier stage. On that occasion the Minister said that the Lord President had no particular competence in this matter, and he repeated that statement tonight. In fact, the Lord President has supreme competence in these matters. The Minister is, therefore, saying that the head of the Scottish judiciary is not capable of appointing arbiters who will do a proper and fair job. Is that the sort of insult the hon. Gentleman is offering the Scottish courts?
§ Mr. MillanThe hon. Gentleman knows hat I did not say that. He also knows that these are the only salary negotiations in which the Lord President of the Court of Session has any kind of responsibility at all. The Lord President has no experience of this. He does not do this in any other sphere and if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel so strongly about the competence and efficiency or the Lord President in these matters, it is strange that when they were in office for 13 years they did no extend his field of activity.
§ Mr. MacArthurThe Minister has again shown that he does not understand the argument. This is not a question of extending the role of the Lord President of the Court of Session into other spheres of arbitration. We are not suggesting that. We are merely suggesting that the Lord President, who for 22 years has acted as the authority who appoints arbiters in disputes of this kind, should continue to perform that rôle.
| Division No. 321.] | AYES | [11.43 p.m. |
| Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) | Grimond, Rt. Hn, J. | Nicholls, Sir Harmar |
| Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) | Gurden, Harold | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Astor, John | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Baker, W. H. K. | Hail-Davis, A. G. F. | Percival, Ian |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Blaker, Peter | Hawkins, Paul | Pym, Francis |
| Bossom, sir Clive | Heseltine, Michael | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Braine, Bernard | Higgins, Terence L. | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hiley, Joseph | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Hill, J. E. B. | Scott, Nicholas |
| Burden, F. A. | Holland, Philip | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Campbell, Gordon | Hordern, Peter | Steel, David (Roxburgh) |
| Carlisle, Mark | Hunt, John | Stodart, Anthony |
| Clegg, Walter | Jenkin, Patrlck (Woodford) | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) |
| Corfield, F. V. | Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Costain, A, P. | Jopling, Michael | Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart) |
| Dance, James | Kimball, Marcus | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.) | King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) | Temple, John M. |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Kitson, Timothy | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry | Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John |
| Drayson, G. B. | Loveys, W. H. | Walters, Dennis |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Mac Arthur, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty) | Whitelaw, Rt. Hon. William |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Maginnis, John E. | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) | Maude, Angus | Worsley, Marcus |
| Glover, Sir Douglas | Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J. | Wright, Esmond |
| Goodhart, Philip | Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. | Younger, Hn. George |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | |
| Gower, Raymond | Mitcampbell, Norman | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Grant, Anthony | More, Jasper | Mr David Mitchell and |
| Grant-Ferris, R. | Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh | Mr Hector Monro. |
| Gresham Cooke, R. | Murton, Oscar |
| NOES | ||
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Barnes, Michael | Booth, Albert |
| Alldritt, Walter | Baxter, William | Boston, Terence |
| Allen, Schoiefield | Bence, Cyril | Braddock, Mrs. E. M. |
| Anderson, Donald | Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Bray, Dr. Jeremy |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Bidwell, Sydney | Brooks, Edwin |
| Ashley, Jack | Binns, John | Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.) |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Bishop, E. S. | Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Blackburn, F. | Cant, R. B. |
§ If the Minister continues in his obstinate insistence that the Lord President has no competence in this matter, he must be reminded of what he said about the conduct of arbitration proceedings in the past, when he said that the highest standard of discretion and judgment had been shown by the Lord President. That being the hon. Gentleman's view, I fail to understand why the Government propose to remove the Lord President from the role which he has carried out so well, and with the confidence of the teaching profession, during the past years.
§ I warn the Minister yet again that, by rejecting the Amendment, he is taking action which will undermine the confidence of the teaching profession not only in the Bill but in the good faith of the Government towards the teaching profession in Scotland.
§ Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes, 148.
| Carmichael, Neil | Howell, Denis (Small Heath) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Carter-Jones, Lewis | Hoy, James | Park, Trevor |
| Coe, Denis | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Pavitt, Laurence |
| Coleman, Donald | Hynd, John | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Concannon, J. D. | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Conlan, Bernard | Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) |
| Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) | Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.) | Reynolds, G. W. |
| Cullen, Mrs. Alice | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Davidson, Arthur (Aeorlngton) | Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Daviea, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Kenyon, Clifford | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth' stow, E.) |
| Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Rose, Paul |
| Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Lawson, George | Rowland, Christopher (Meriden) |
| Daviea, Robert (Cambridge) | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton) | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Dewar, Donald | Lestor, Miss Joan | Ryan, John |
| Dickens, James | Lomas, Kenneth | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Doig, Peter | Loughlin, Charles | Silverman, Julius (Aston) |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyncth (Exeter) | Luard, Evan | Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.) |
| Eadie, Alex | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Thomas George (Cardiff, W.) |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | MacColl, James | Tinn, James |
| Ensor, David | MacDermot, Niall | Urwin, T. W. |
| Faulds, Andrew | McGuire, Michael | Varley, Eric G. |
| Fernyhough, E. | McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) |
| Finch, Harold | Mackintosh, John P. | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) | MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles) | Wallace, George |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | MacPherson, Malcolm | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| Ford, Ben | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor) |
| Forrester, John | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Wellbeloved, James |
| Fowter, Gerry | Manuel, Archie | Whitaker, Ben |
| Freeson, Reginald | Marquand, David | Whitlock, William |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mason, Roy | Wilkins, W. A. |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Milfan, Bruce | Williams, Clifford (Abertillery) |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | Miller, Or. M. S. | Williams, Mrs. snirley (Hitchin) |
| Gregory, Arnold | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.) |
| Grey, Charles (Durham) | Morgan, Eryetan (Cardiganshire) | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Hamilton, James (Bothwell) | Murray, Albert | Winnick, David |
| Harper, Joseph | Neal, Harold | Winterbottom, R. E. |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Norwood, Christopher | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. |
| Haseldine, Norman | Oakes, Gordon | |
| Hilton, W. S. | O'Malley, Brian | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Hooley, Frank | Orme, Stanley | Mr Charles R. Morris and |
| Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Oswald, Thomas | Mr Neil McBride |
| Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Owen, Will (Morpeth) |
§ Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No"—
§ 11.50 p.m.
§ Mr. MacArthurOn a point of order. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) rose in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerMr. Taylor.
§ Mr. WillisFurther to that point of order. Had not the voices in fact been collected?
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerThe voices had not been collected.
Mr. TaylorIt comes ill from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to make such an intervention when I have 1504 been present throughout the day and have not said a word on the subject of the Water (Scotland) Bill or on the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Bill and now intervene simply to ask a short question. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been more responsible than any other hon. Member for keeping hon. Members up night after night on matters which to us did not appear to be as significant as they did to him. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my question as effectively as he answered the detailed points which we put on the Amendment of which we have just disposed.
Having read it very carefully, I am sure that this is a splendid Bill, but will it be of any help whatever in finding a speedy and effective way to reach a conclusion on the Roberts Report on the supply of teachers, especially in Glasgow, where there is a very serious shortage and where, although we have only one fifth of the children of Scotland, we have about 60 per cent. of the part-time teachers, thus having more than our share of the teacher shortage?
1505 This is an urgent matter. We have been waiting for action by the Government, or even an indication that they support the principle of the Report. The Government have advanced all kinds of reasons for delaying a decision. Will the Bill help in any way to speed up a decision on this vital issue so that Glasgow no longer has to carry more than its share o' the teacher shortage? The situation in Glasgow is alarming and something must be done. Will the Bill shorten what seems to be the unreasonable delay in reaching a decision about the Roberts Report?
§ 11.54 p.m.
§ Mr. MillanI was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) say that this was a splendid Bill, and I hope that from that it follows that he voted with the Government and not with his right hon. Friends on the Amendment. In any case, it is a splendid Bill which, I hope, will make a considerable difference to the progress of negotiations and to the way in which the negotiations are conducted for the settlement of teachers' salaries in Scotland.
But the Bill does not deal with the actual settlements themselves, the level of the settlements, or particular recommendations like those of the Roberts Report. I answered Questions about the recommendations of the Roberts Report less than a fortnight ago when I made the Government's position clear.
§ Mr. MillanIt may not be clear to the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of things which are not clear to him. However, I answered the point less than a fortnight ago and as it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, I had better leave it there.
§ 11.55 p.m.
§ Mr. MacArthurI share the feeling of shock experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on the intervention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I remember the many hours during which the hon. Gentleman entertained us when he was in opposition. He is the last hon. Member who should try to advise any hon. Member on this side to join him in the "silent service" 1506 to which he used to belong and from which we are glad that he has now escaped.
I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for replying, although he did so inadequately, to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is within the competence of the Bill to consider the relevant remuneration of teachers. It is clear that there are certain priorities of need which will have to be considered by the Committee when it meets. I will not rehearse all of them now, but one of them certainly is the critical shortage of teachers in Glasgow. Whatever the Under-Secretary may say about what he said in reply to Questions a little while ago, we on this side are dismayed that the Government have sat on the Roberts Report for close on nine months without any sort of action. We are disturbed that the Government's main interest in education at present appears to be to try to impose on all local authorities a uniform system of education whether it meets the needs of local authorities or not. To do this in the name of social justice, at a time when 3,000 children in Scotland are receiving part-time education, shows a complete lack of understanding of the priorities needed in the educational structure.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I do not think that that arises on Third Reading. We are dealing only with the remuneration of teachers.
§ Mr. MacArthurI am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel strongly about this question, as do the people of Scotland.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI do not care whether the hon. Member feels strongly about it. It does not arise on Third Reading.
§ Mr. MacArthurI bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are matters of concern, but I will return to the Bill.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I have ruled that these matters must not be discussed on Third Reading. It is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating what has been said already.
§ Mr. MacArthurI did not want to appear to be discourteous. I simply said that I would return at once to the Bill.
1507 As I indicated earlier, we regard the Bill as an excellent Measure. I believe that it improves the present structure. It provides for representation of the Secretary of State on the negotiating committee. That, I believe, will remove a weakness which we have experienced in the past and remove one of the reasons for so much dissent in past years. I hope that, with this system of representation by the Secretary of State on the committee and with the plans which the hon. Gentleman explained to us the other day about the representation of the interested parties on the committee, we can enter on a new harmony in salary matters within the profession.
I very much regret the Government's reluctance to make a change in Clause 3. I firmly believe that the Government have, by rejecting the proposed change, insisted on maintaining a proposal which will weaken the confidence of teachers, or at any rate of a large body of teachers, in the new committee. I hope that I am wrong. However, I believe that the Under-Secretary has run a very real risk which he should never have involved himself in. Even now, perhaps at a later stage, the hon. Gentleman might give further thought to this point.
Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that it will prove to be the beginning of a new and happier chapter in relations with the profession.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.