Teachers (Scotland) (Hansard, 11 December 1984)

§ Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)
This is—

§ Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has done the House and the people of Scotland a great service by securing this debate this evening. However, the Secretary of State for Scotland has made a major announcement, which will have enormous consequences for teachers in Scottish education, but he is not here on the Front Bench tonight. Is that not an outrageous affront to the House of Commons?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
Order.

§ Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)
Where is he? Where is the Secretary of State?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat when I am on my feet.

§ Mr. Canavan
The Secretary of State is not in his seat.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is taking time from the Adjournment debate by continuing the point of order. The presence or otherwise of the Secretary of State is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. Canavan
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Where is the Secretary of State if he is not in his seat?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I have already told the House that this is not a matter for me.

§ Mr. Maxton
I take the point that my hon. Friends the Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) are making, because the issue of teachers' pay and salaries, and their demand for an independent inquiry to examine their pay and conditions, is an important one for Scotland.
When I first applied for this debate two weeks ago, the major teaching union in Scotland, the Education Institute of Scotland had been demanding such an inquiry for four months. When I was eventually granted the debate last week, it was against the background of the teachers in Scotland being on strike for one day. That strike achieved a turn-out of 31,000 out of 41,000 members of the EIS. In areas which are traditionally moderate such as Dumfries and Ayrshire, the strike was 90 per cent. effective among EIS members. Tomorrow, yet again the teachers of Scotland will be on strike.
In the meantime we have had a written answer from the Secretary of State to a question carefully planted by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth). Planted questions are not unknown. In that reply the Secretary of State made important announcements about the inquiry into teachers' pay.
The first point that must be made is that the Secretary of State is not present to hear the debate. Secondly, he should not have made such an important statement in a written answer. He should have made a statement on the Floor of the House this afternoon so that we could question 1028 him about it. It is an insult — a continuing insult — because time after time the Secretary of State makes statements by way of written answers.
I understand that on television in Scotland tonight the Secretary of State said that a written answer was the usual way to deal with such matters. His colleagues in the Cabinet do not believe that. They believe that the correct way is to make a statement on the Floor of the House. How much better it would be if we had an assembly in Scotland where such matters could be properly debated and decided.
If the statement is so important, why did it have to be made today and what effect does the Secretary of State think that it will have? If I were being slightly less immodest than usual, I should say that it was to forestall my Adjournment debate. I do not believe that to be so. I think that the Secretary of State must have thought that if he issued the statement today it would appease the teachers in Scotland and that the industrial action promised for tomorrow would be called off. I have spoken to teachers' leaders in Scotland tonight and I am afraid that I must disillusion the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State was given a roasting tonight on Scottish BBC television. He was taken apart by that most moderate of women, Mrs. Mary Marquiss, and made to look foolish. That says something about his case.
Far from appeasing the teachers, he has made matters considerably worse. It is likely that what he has said will cause considerable confusion in Scotland tomorrow and that the industrial dispute will go on even longer than first intended. It is possible that the teachers will ballot for an extension of industrial action and that they will be joined by other trade unions in the teaching sector.
The Secretary of State has treated the legitimate demand for an inquiry with contempt. He is not prepared to admit that teachers' pay has been seriously eroded. He said in the letter which formed part of the written reply: it is of course no part of the Government's policy that salary increases should be indexed either to the rate of inflation or to some measurement of pay increases in the economy generally … However, pay awards to teachers over the last 10 years or so have in fact been very closely comparable with those made to other groups of local authority employees in Scotland. I do not know about whom the Secretary of State is talking.

§ Mr. Canavan
What about the police?

§ Mr. Maxton
Indeed, what about the police? Their salaries have gone up considerably more than teachers' salaries.
The Minister has treated that argument with complete contempt. He has said to the teachers, "We do not believe that your salaries should be increased. We believe that the erosion of your salaries against the cost of living and other comparable professions is right." From what he said on television about pay, it would appear that one reason why he is refusing to set up an independent inquiry is that it would give a blank cheque to the Educational Institute for Scotland. Conservative Members might agree—do that they think that it would so so? Let us consider what that means. They are saying that an independent inquiry—one set up not by the EIS but by the Secretary of State—would be so convinced by the teachers' case that it would give them everything they want.
The Minister said that the workload of pressures on teachers has not increased. Anyone who knows anything about the teaching profession knows that that is not the case. There has been enormous curricula development in 1029 relation to those two great men of Scottish education, Dr. Munn and Mr. Dunning. The Secretary of State says that, essentially, the curricula development will be over in a short time. Anyone who studies the matter knows that examinations will have to be set up and the work by teachers will continue for a long time yet. Many children face prospects of no employment when they leave school. They are not interested in education because they feel that they will be on the dole queue anyway. That places an additional burden on teachers.
The Secretary of State makes an offer of a possible award of additional money. Let us be clear that that is hedged about by so many clauses, sub-clauses and sub-contracts that it is difficult to say that it is any more than a con-trick. In return for that fraction of a promise, the teachers will be asked to give up hard-fought and hard-won conditions of service for essentially nothing. They are not being offered anything in return.
The Minister has solved nothing by his statement. The teachers are angry, depressed and frustrated. That will lead in the short-term to industrial action. No teacher wants that—the teaching profession is not renowned for industrial action. The Minister must ask why the Government have forced teachers into industrial action that they do not want. Even more important are the long-term effects on the morale of Scottish education of such a statement.
I ask the Minister to change his mind and set up an independent inquiry to decide the rightful position of Scottish teachers.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) on his good fortune in having an Adjournment debate tonight on this important matter. I am grateful to him for leaving me a few minutes before the Minister replies.
It is significant that the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have had ample opportunities to address the House on this matter, but they have declined to do so. Had it not been for the fact that my hon. Friend was fortunate in obtaining the Adjournment debate tonight, there is a strong possibility that we should not have heard from the Government today.
I said earlier today that the Secretary of State's letter on this issue was an insult to the teachers and to the House and therefore it would have been a complete waste of time had he come to the House to make a statement today. I have come to the conclusion that the Government have now set themselves on a road which turns every grievance in this country into an industrial dispute.
The Scottish teachers have a justifiable grievance. The Munn and Dunning reports have been produced. The whole context of a teacher's work load has changed quite dramatically. The Secretary of State does not even acknowledge that in his letter to Bob Beattie, published today. Teachers' salaries have fallen substantially, in a way which no other profession in this country has experienced. The Secretary of State acknowledges that fact but goes on to say that that is part of the Government's policy in any case.
The right hon. Gentleman adds a final insult to injury by saying that he is prepared to try to find a way around all this by setting up some kind of inquiry, but that he will 1030 dictate the terms. He wants an investigation into nine or 10 points which would dramatically alter teachers' contracts of employment by taking up hard earned home time in order to right a grievance'. The teachers have a justifiable grievance. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends want to alter the teachers' contracts in order to right what undoubtedly is a justifiable grievance.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart is right and there is prolonged trouble in Scottish schools, it will be because the Secretary of State does not understand Scottish education. Never having attended a Scottish school, he does not understand that we aim for the highest standards. Nor does he understand the dedication of Scottish teachers. Therefore, he plays on something which he simply does not understand.
If there is trouble in our Scottish schools, the responsibility for it—let it be said before the trouble begins; it is not a case of being wise after the event—will lie at the door of the Secretary of State. I hope that the parents of children in Scotland will understand clearly that the teachers are the victims of this Government's dogma and of a policy which is so unjust and so reprehensible that it is bound to lead to trouble. Even at this late hour I plead with the Minister to try to persuade his right hon. Friend to use common sense, to withdraw the letter which he sent today to Bob Beattie and to accept the teachers' request, not a demand, for an independent review so that the teachers can get on with the job which they so want to do—teaching our children.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)
On such a serious subject, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) did not resist the temptation to make some cheap and totally unjustified personal remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) will not be surprised to learn that I did not agree with much, if any, of what he said. But this is a serious subject and I am glad of the opportunity tonight to set out the position, following my right hon. Friend's statement, and in particular to put on record the Government's decision today on the postponement of the implementation of the standard grade, following the receipt today of a letter from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The complaints of hon. Members opposite about the absence of an oral statement were totally bogus [interuption.] I have checked what the last Labour Government did on teachers' pay under similar conditions. Not only was there not an oral statement, but I have not found a written statement, although one may exist.
I assure those hon. Gentlemen who have suggested that in some way the timing of today's decision was related to industrial action that it was completely unrelated to any disruptive action. Of course we deplore the disruptive action that has been taken. I hope that disruptive action will not continue once the teachers have had the opportunity to consider precisely what my right hon. Friend said. Disruptive action will damage pupils, Scottish education and teachers' reputations. I can say unequivocally that disruptive action from the teachers' point of view will achieve nothing.
No responsible Government could possibly have signed a blank cheque in the way that the teachers wanted. But my right hon. Friend has said clearly in his statement that 1031 he fully appreciates the strong feelings of many teachers. He has pointed out that there is another possible and proper way to handle the matter.

§ Mr. Canavan
Give the teachers the same money as the police.

§ Mr. Stewart
If I have time, I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point about the police.
It is the statutory responsibility of the Scottish joint negotiationg committee to determine the salaries and conditions of service of school teachers in Scotland. We are prepared to consider on their merits, and in the framework of the Government's existing public expenditure plans for Scotland, any proposals relating to pay and conditions of service which might result from a detailed examination undertaken by the SJNC for school education.

§ Mr. Maxton
If the Minister is prepared to do that, why does he not accept the report that has already been drawn up by the working party of the joint negotiating committee which has representatives of the Secretary of State on the management side?

§ Mr. Stewart
I am about to deal with that report, which I have read, unlike, I suspect, many hon. Gentlemen.
My right hon. Friend has, however, pointed out that a review of conditions of service would have to deal specifically with areas where existing arrangements appear not to be in keeping with the present-day requirements, including the definition and prescription of teachers' responsibilities in the planning of personal teaching methods and programmes; the teaching, discipline and assessment of pupils; participation in schemes of personal professional development; participation in pastoral, tutorial and guidance arrangements; lunchtime and playtime supervision of pupils and consultations with parents, including attendance at parents' meetings, and control by employers of time within conditioned hours when teachers are not in class contact.
I cannot accept that it is other than realistic and constructive to want to examine teachers' conditions of service as well as their salaries. In much of the discussion of the teachers' request for an independent review of their salaries alone, great play was made of their status as professionals. But the argument that we have been hearing is that teachers should be paid on what they conceive to be professional scales but that their conditions of service, which in a number of respects are favourable, should not come under scrutiny. Teachers currently work a 32½-hour week. I shall rephrase that. Teachers currently have a 32½-hour working week.

§ Mr. Ewing
That is a cheap point.

§ Mr. Stewart
No, it is not a cheap point. It is surely unusual, by the standards of any profession, that teachers should have several hours in the week—the difference between their class contact time and their working hours—in which it is up to them to decide where they put in the hours that they are expected to spend on non-class contact duties.
I understand that there has been something of a hysterical reaction about the conditions of service point from the Educational Institute of Scotland this evening.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
A what reaction—historical or hysterical?

§ Mr. Stewart
I understood that there has been a hysterical reaction to this point. There is a good deal of 1032 confusion about such matters as playground and lunchtime supervision, discussions with parents and attendances at parents' meetings. There is much doubt in the minds of many teachers whether these matters are part of their professional duties. It is in no one's interests—parent, teacher or pupil — to leave the issue unresolved. A review is a sensible response to what has been said.
I shall respond to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Cathcart about the teachers' case for substantial salary increases.

§ Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I usually give way to those who wish to intervene. However, I should like to get on with my speech. If I have time later, when I have put my case on the record, I will give way to him.

§ Mr. Canavan
Did anyone teach the Minister to make a speech?

§ Mr. Stewart
I had excellent teachers.

§ Mr. Canavan
It does not sound like it.

§ Mr. Stewart
We have been told by the hon. Member for Cathcart that the teachers have an unanswerable case for salary increases. That is based on the proposition that if something is said often enough and loudly enough it automatically becomes true.

§ Mr. Canavan
Give teachers the same money as the police.

§ Mr. Stewart
I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point about the police. Teachers have been treated very much like other comparable groups of employees. Teachers say that comparable groups have received much larger pay increases than themselves, but if they are compared with other public service groups, especially others employed by local authorities such as manual workers, social workers, administrative, professional and technical grades, and with civil servants, it emerges that they have been treated in much the same way. When one compares teachers with civil servants in the comparable salary bands, it emerges that teachers have had larger salary increases over the past 10 years than those groups.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the police. The police provide security and they are significantly different from other groups because they have no right to strike. I need hardly say, in more general terms, that it is not the Government's policy to index pay increases either to the rate of inflation or to earnings of other groups.

§ Mr. Canavan
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
That would not be consistent with our policy of fighting inflation—

§ Mr. Canavan
It is on the police—

§ Mr. Stewart
—or of keeping down expenditure—

§ Mr. Canavan
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Canavan
It is unfair of the Minister to compare teachers with the police.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must ask the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) to resume his seat. The Minister has not given way.

§ Mr. Canavan
Then he will give way now. The police cannot be compared with teachers. Teachers educate children.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Canavan
The police are employed by this Government to beat miners and others over the head on picket lines.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who was fortunate enough to secure the Adjournment debate. The debate is personal to him and we want to hear the Minister's reply. Mr. Allan Stewart.

§ Mr. Canavan
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Stewart
No, I have given way to the hon. Member for Cathcart, who initiated the debate. I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West. The local authority sector must be a part—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falkirk, West is not doing any good by making constant interjections. Hon. Members on both sides of the House want to hear what I am saying in response to the arguments of the hon. Member for Cathcart.
Hon. Members will know that my right hon. Friend sought the advice of the Scottish Examination Board and COSLA on whether phases II and III of the standard grade reforms in the implementation programme should be postponed. The SEB advised that for its interest there was as yet no reason for postponement. I have today received the advice of the convention that phases II and III should be postponed, and my right hon. Friend has accepted that advice. I agree with the convention that the policy of non-co-operation in new curricular developments, which the EIS has adopted, makes it necessary to postpone the new courses due to begin in August 1985 and August 1986.
I share the extreme reluctance with which the convention said it decided that postponement was now inevitable. The refusal of teachers to co-operate in new developments is a complete betrayal of the expectations of parents and pupils. I regret particularly the loss to those pupils who have not hitherto had the opportunity to show what they can do in national examinations and to gain a certificate showing their achievements. The policy now adopted by the EIS contrasts strangely with its view, less than two years ago, that implementation should be speeded up—a view that the Government then accepted.

§ Mr. Dewar
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
By its action — or rather policy of inaction the EIS has now prolonged for the schools the 1034 period of overlap during which both old and new courses are taught, a period which, not so long ago, the EIS was anxious to reduce to a minimum.

§ Mr. Dewar
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
May I finish this point?
I must reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made crystal clear: there can be no going back on phase I of standard grade, the new courses in English, mathematics, science and social and vocational skills which pupils started in August this year. We cannot betray the trust of those pupils by saying to some of them that, after all, they will not have the opportunity to gain the Scottish certificate of education in 1986 and saying to others that, after a term spent on the new courses, they must revert—

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you were going to bring the proceedings to an end. The Under-Secretary of State has made an important statement. There has been a difficulty in getting such statements from the Library the following day. May we have the statement placed in the Library? Will you approach Mr. Speaker on this subject? A statement made around midnight has not been available to hon. Members.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Under-Secretary of State has heard the hon. Member's comments.

§ Mr. Dewar
rose—

§ Mr. Stewart
I cannot give way; I have only one minute to go. I shall be happy to ensure tomorrow that hon. Members have an early copy of what I am saying, because this matter is important.
Phase I of standard grade must go ahead as planned, and we shall, of course, monitor the position. We are consulting the local authorities and the examination board. I hope that we can minimise any further disruption to pupils now embarked on these new courses, to pupils studying for ordinary grade and higher grade examinations and to the conduct of the examinations next year.
The Opposition have talked about the additional work load for teachers. I must say to the—