HC Deb 26 March 1985 vol 76 cc277-97

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 113(2) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

7.54 pm
Mr. Gerald Malone (Aberdeen, South)

I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise an exceptionally important matter for Scotland — the effect that teachers' strike action is having on Scottish pupils.

I shall divide my comments into two areas: first, the general effects of the dispute in Scotland and how I hope they might be solved and, secondly, the effects of strike action on my constituency. The effects have been rather singular and different. I attempted to secure this debate to echo the views of my colleagues from Scotland, although I do not do so in any animosity towards the merits of the teachers' case. There are differences between opposite sides of the House and between my views and those of many people in teaching. However, I should like to emphasise that there is a fund of good will and sympathy for many of the important points made by teachers to me and my colleagues. It would be helpful if we had an opportunity constructively to express that sympathetic view. I hope that that spirit will be clear to teachers in my constituency, to teachers throughout Scotland and to parents.

We should consider the nub of the issue that is causing difficulty and preventing negotiation and see how it can be overcome. The difficulty faced by teachers and the Government is the demand for an independent pay review. That difficulty is not quite as substantial as it was, because a significant number of teachers concede that the best way forward is to negotiate through the statutory joint negotiating machinery and to pursue the offers that the Government have made through that mechanism. The Educational Institute of Scotland is almost alone in standing out for an independent pay review. That intransigence is causing the difficulties which school-children in Scotland are now experiencing. It is a log-jam of which parents are becoming increasingly impatient because they have seen flexibility from only one side in the dispute—from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He alone has moved. It is becoming increasingly unclear why the offer that he has put down cannot be explored properly—

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

Which offer?

Mr. Malone

—as we would be happy to support some parts of the teachers' case.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asks which offer. I am happy to tell him. It is an important offer during such negotiations. It is an offer to find new funding over and above the record funds that are being spent in Scotland per pupil in the primary and secondary sectors of education, and to finance with those funds a suitable package, which can be negotiated through the joint statutory negotiating machinery.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart)

Will the hon. Gentleman admit that he is misleading the House when he says that? The Secretary of State said that he would consider carefully whether he could find extra money to finance the package. He has made no promises to finance a package.

Mr. Malone

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that to set out firm positions and to define sums or claims at the outset of negotiations is patently absurd. He also knows full well that there has been no detailed articulated demand from the EIS in the dispute. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that my right hon. Friend's offer to find new funds is not a sign of flexibility, especially as Mr. Pollock of the EIS conceded it to be a sign of flexibility, is nonsense.

The offer should be explored. It would not prejudice the teachers' rights, and in no sense would it imply that they must accept it. It would be helpful for me as a Back-Bench Member to explore the terms of the offer, and if my colleagues and I thought it appropriate, to apply whatever pressure we felt necessary to meet the rightful demands of teachers in Scotland.

It is important for teachers and the people of Scotland to understand the sincerity with which the teachers' demand for an independent pay review is supported by Opposition Members. There is no substance in it. It is implied that if Opposition Members were in government and had the levers of power within their control, they would concede an independent pay review for teachers. That means that they would be bound to give an independent pay review to other public sector bodies which required it. That is the implication of conceding an independent pay review to teachers.

Why should a procedure be made available only to the public sector? Perhaps we should debate whether we are to embark on a system of independent pay reviews throughout every sector of the economy. Opposition Members are misleading the public when they say that they would run down this road with the teachers, but would be prevented from running down exactly the same road of wage bargaining with other interests. That is nonsense.

The claims to back an independent pay review run uncomfortably with many of the statements from Opposition Members following the Budget. On the one hand they ask for an independent review, presumably with the implication that it would be accepted no matter what level it set, and on the other they demand some sort of incomes policy or incomes strategy. To pursue both courses at once is misleading, and deceives the Scottish people and the teachers whom they claim to support. It is blatantly dishonest.

Alliance politicians consistently pledge themselves to a firm incomes policy. I do not know how they can justify granting an independent pay review hand in hand with a policy of controlling incomes and, presumably, relativities. I was interested to read an article in The Sunday Times of 17 March by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). He said that he would introduce an incomes strategy, to distribute more rewards more fairly and keep inflation down. If the right hon. Gentleman were to embark on a policy of independent pay reviews throughout the public sector, it would not ride easily with that claim.

Mr. Malcom Bruce (Gordon)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how a Government who have been in power for six years and have cut public sector pay to the bone can say anything about fairness or justice, or speak of a mechanism for relating pay in the public sector fairly to pay in the private sector? That is an incomes strategy, and that is what we support. Conservative Members have no fair means of assessing pay in the public sector. All public sector pay has been screwed down, except that earned by Tories.

Mr. Malone

If the hon. Gentleman is talking about a fair way of assessing the income of people in the public sector, the way not to go about it is to concede one independent pay review to one public sector body. It is illogical to suggest that the teachers should be supported in this issue, when Opposition Members are not prepared to say what the rest of their policy is.

It must be made extremely clear to the teaching profession in Scotland that, while Opposition Members may happily consort with teachers in this demand for an independent pay review, if Opposition Members were in office, in the light of the policy that they have already stated following the Budget, they would be the last people to concede that review.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

Can we take it that the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the independent review procedures that already apply and have been carried out by the Government for the police service, the armed forces and the fire service?

Mr. Malone

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that many concessions were granted by people involved in those reviews, which are not even now on the table for the teachers. If the teachers sought arbitration, his point may be valid, but they do not seek arbitration. The absurdity of their position is that they want an independent pay review and want its results referred to the statutory joint negotiating machinery, to which they refuse to resort. That is the absurd illogicality of their case, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

If we are discussing a way to achieve a quick end to the dispute and to its detrimental effects on Scottish schoolchildren, the first way forward is to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. I cannot understand why those who say that the results of an independent review must in any event be referred to the statutory negotiating machinery are not prepared fully to explore my right hon. Friend's offer. At the end of the day it may be exposed to be no offer at all. I do not know that; indeed, no one knows it. The teachers who refuse to use the negotiating machinery do not know that either. If we are talking about a rapid resolution of the dispute, the joint negotiating machinery should be used.

By encouraging teachers in what Opposition Members well know to be an utterly impossible objective, which they could not fulfil even within their own policy guidelines, Opposition Members are more responsible than striking teachers for the damage being done to the education of children in Scottish schools.

Mr. James Hamilton (Motherwell, North)

Does the hon. Gentleman remember the Houghton report? That was before he came to the House. A Labour Government set that report in motion and a Labour Government implemented its recommendations in full. They also set up the Clegg commission, which was disbanded when the Conservatives came to power.

Mr. Malone

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that that sort of approach to public sector bargaining is not something to which his party is committed now. Are Opposition Members prepared to indulge in independent pay reviews across the board in the public sector? If they do not give that commitment now, the commitment that they seek to give to the teachers is nothing more than a sham.

The effects of the dispute are to be found in the short and long terms. In the short term, although not for those affected by exams, there will be great difficulty. I am grateful to the teaching unions in Scotland for at least conceding that examinations will be allowed to proceed. If we are to find some ground on which to build during the debate, I hope that we can consider that as a sign that they will take into account the interests of their pupils. But the point is that, even for those who will be allowed to take examinations, there will always be the thought that the results that they achieve will be, in some way, inferior or second class.

The long-term fear is that this industrial disruption will prejudice the implementation of the Munn and Dunning proposals. They were broadly welcomed not only on both sides of the House, but throughout the teaching profession, and it is desperately sad that the innovative approach of Munn and Dunning could be prejudiced not only this year but in the long term.

Mrs. Anna McCurley (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only was the teaching profession anxious to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals, but the Government gave adequate assistance — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They were extremely expeditious about introducing finances adequate to implement the Munn and Dunning proposals.

Mr. Malone

My hon. Friend is right. If the long-term future of education in Scotland, as it is affected by Munn and Dunning, is to be prejudiced by such industrial action, it is regrettable.

As to the other aspects of the dispute, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for making clear his position during the dispute and for giving every undertaking that he can that the effects of industrial action will be consistently reviewed. He has said that he will take every action within his power to ensure that pupils at least are not affected. We are beginning to see some of the results of that undertaking. I am glad to know that the Scottish Examinations Board has allowed an extension of the arrangements for appeals along the same lines as it did during industrial disputes in 1975, 1979 and 1980. Although that is not an adequate solution to the problem, it is helpful as far as it goes. I was also pleased to know that the Scottish Universities Council on Entrance has said that it will take into account the position of any candidates who might suffer as a result of the industrial action in Scottish schools.

I make no secret of the fact that they are simply temporary expedients to get over an appalling difficulty that has been recognised ever more widely by the parents of Scottish schoolchildren who are suffering the effects of the current action. If the dispute continues, as it seems set to do for some time at least, I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to ensure that children will not be made to suffer in their examination results because of the action taken by teachers.

I now turn to matters connected with my constituency. One school in my constituency — Aberdeen grammar school — has been especially hit by selective strike action. The children there are suffering much more hardship than many other children in Scotland. Indeed, they have regularly been denied education for three days a week, and it looks as though that will continue to be the case. It was no puzzle to me why Aberdeen grammar school was selected for strike action, although it was not made clear by the EIS. That school was chosen because it was in my constituency and because I did not support the teachers' claim for an independent pay review. The EIS fudged the issue. It would not admit that. The suggestion was—it would seem absurd to anyone with common sense — that the EIS had happened upon Aberdeen grammar school as part of a general programme of escalation — [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) laughs at that suggestion, which is patently absurd.

The EIS adhered to that view until Monday 11 March, when, at a parent-teacher association meeting at Aberdeen grammar school, the local field officer for the EIS, Mr. Stuart Topp, made it clear what the position was. He said clearly that the school had been selected with a view to pressurising me to change my views on the issue. Following the meeting of 11 March, I attended a meeting of a cross-section of parents from that parent-teacher association, at which much concern was expressed that such action was being taken. The correspondence that I have had from constituents since then has shown that they share that concern. The EIS has now clearly said that it is taking selective action in the constituencies of Conservative Back-Bench Members to pressurise them to change their minds on this issue.

I do not mind the fact that pressure has been brought upon me. I am prepared to listen to representations from any quarter, but when children in my constituency are made to suffer for my views that is nothing short of disgraceful.

Mr. Home Robertson

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not a Conservative Back-Bench Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Teachers have been on strike in my constituency, and my son was not in school today because the only teacher in the primary school that he attends in the Borders region, which is represented by a Liberal Member of Parliament, was on strike today. Will the hon. Gentleman stop giving us this humbug?

Mr. Malone

There seems to be some dispute about the hon. Gentleman's credentials. Some members of his party do not seem to want him. Sometimes I wonder whether we should not invite him to join the Conservative party. He completely fails to recognise that Aberdeen grammar school was the first school in Scotland to be selected for strike action three days a week. That is a matter of simple record, which was admitted by the EIS. The position has become completely clear. The school was selected with only one purpose in mind. I view it as an attempt to intimidate me by holding hostage the future of children in my constituency in connection with the dispute. It is utterly reprehensible. It is political blackmail of the most despicable sort.

I say to the teachers who are taking action that they are losing support. They have not lost my support for the merits of their case—I would not be so mean-minded and petty as to do that—but they are losing support among parents, who resent them. The action has been deplored by many teachers, not only in Aberdeen but in Scotland as a whole. I should make it clear that such selective action, which is designed to intimidate me, is utterly ineffectual and will be of no use to them.

Teachers in Scotland should be trying to get as much support as they can from parents and from Conservative Members. To indulge in selective action does nothing for the merits of their case and nothing for the children whose interests they claim to have at heart. It turns logic on its head to say that they are prepared to indulge in the most damaging sort of selective action—that of three days a week—but that it is all in the interests of children and of Scottish education.

Mr. Maxton

That is right.

Mr. Malone

The hon. Gentleman says that that is right, but the future in which I am interested is that of children who will be adversely affected in the short term. They are the worst affected by the strike.

Mr. Maxton

rose—

Mr. Malone

I have given way enough in my speech. I am making a constituency point now, and I do not wish to give way again. The teachers do their cause no good.

The other part of the message that I wish to get across tonight is that Conservative Members are not blind to many of the intrinsic merits of the teachers' case. I cite as one example, in which I have every sympathy for teachers who write to me, the salary structure. That is inadequate in the long term, when we are trying to cope with the difficulties of falling school rolls and the impossibility of being able to secure promoted posts. This is why my right hon. Friend has suggested that we should negotiate a package of pay and conditions together, so that all these matters can be thoroughly investigated and sorted out, to the satisfaction of the teaching profession as a whole. [Interruption.] Labour Members may scoff, but why do we not give this opportunity a chance? What do the teachers have to lose by entering into the negotiating machinery? What problems do they see in presenting their case that they do not have now? That is nonsense, and they should go through the negotiations as quickly as possible.

The main interest of the House, of the teaching profession as a whole, of parents and of children is to bring this dispute to an end as rapidly as possible. The simple way to do that must be to go to the statutory joint negotiating committee. If, at the end of the day, a satisfactory deal is not negotiated, and paid for by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is nothing to prevent the teachers from arguing their case point by point in the country and the House and to hon. Members such as myself and my colleagues. We would have much more sympathy with what the teachers are doing if they behaved like that.

Members of the EIS who are particularly indulging in selective action such as this are losing support within their profession. Two teaching unions are suggesting that the statutory joint negotiating machinery should be used and explored. Why do EIS members not see that that is the way forward? If they are waiting because they think that there might be an element of political defeat in such an approach, and that Conservative Members would delight in rubbing their noses in the dirt if they were to resort to the machinery, nothing could be further from the truth. If they resorted to the statutory negotiating machinery, that would be a matter for rejoicing among Conservative Members and teachers would get much more support than they have so far been able to acquire.

There is no suggestion that I would be keen in any circumstances to gain any political victory from the teachers' resort to the statutory negotiating machinery. I hope that all hon. Members have the interests of school children in our constituencies much too close at heart for that. I encourage teachers throughout Scotland, particularly in my constituency, to abandon the damaging action that they are taking, and the attempts that they are making to try to intimidate me and other Conservative Members by such strike action. It will do them no good. We have one interest in common—the welfare of our schoolchildren. This method of selective strike action does nothing to help that.

8.23 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

This is a valuable opportunity, thanks to the luck of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone), to debate this important issue, which, as he rightly says, concerns large numbers of people throughout Scotland. It concerns not just parents of children who are now in the education system but those who have a genuine interest in the education system.

I have a feeling that the Government are yet again running scared of this issue as they are of rates revaluation, which subject we will debate later. There are reports that the Secretary of State for Scotland is on television in Scotland this evening making noises that seem to show that some announcement will be made about rates. Perhaps he is trailing his coat in advance of the Scottish Conservative party conference on this issue, on which the Government are in serious trouble. If any announcement is to come, it will come against the background of assurances and categoric statements suggesting that the Government were resolute and would not back down in the face of pressure. However, the Government are clearly scared, are running, and will change their minds.

There is genuine concern in Scotland about what is happening in the education system. The teachers' dispute is only one feature in the landscape of the problems facing Scottish education. I do not dissent from a number of comments that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has made, but I do dissent from the conclusions at which he arrives and the partisan view of the dispute in schools that he takes.

Last night, I went to a well-attended meeting of the parent-teacher association of a number of schools in my constituency. Many parents expressed genuine concern about a number of things going on in the education system, and in particular about the impact of the teachers' dispute on their children.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made a particular point about the impact on children being educated in the constituencies of Conservative Members, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has pointed out, the dispute has had an impact across the board and as feeling strengthens the impact will increase. There is considerable and growing sympathy for the teachers' case and for the reasonable nature of the request that they are putting forward. There is support for the teachers among parents and pupils.

There is a crisis in Scottish education that is manifested not only by the teachers' pay. The frustration of teachers is occasioned not just by the level of their salary, although that is the particular problem that has been identified, but by a number of other factors. First, there are falling school rolls, which should have been the opportunity for expanding and improving the education services. Instead, because it coincides with savagely cut education resources in Scotland, the opportunities are being squandered, and the traumatic effects of the possibility of school closures are having an impact on the morale of parents and teachers.

Mr. Malone

Why, if there was that widespread concern about conditions and pay, did the EIS seek simply an independent review of pay without reference to conditions?

Mr. Robertson

I am talking about the dilemma that faces the whole of the Scottish education system, which has led to the frustration that has centralised itself on the particular issue of pay. If the hon. Gentleman will let me come to the end of my speech, he will find that the conclusion at which I arrive is that there was probably no alternative but to concentrate the eyes of the negotiators on a particular aspect.

On top of the problems associated with the Government's cut in resources has been the introduction of the 16 to 18 action plan and of Munn and Dunning, which has received widespread and general welcome among teachers, parents and other members of the community. However, the combination of all these factors, occurring at one and the same time — the development of a unique and original solution to try to deal with these things, as the consortia arrangements in the Strathclyde has been—has been to create almost unique pressures on members of the teaching profession.

Conservative Members should understand the nature of the feeling that exists among teachers today. This is not an ordinary industrial dispute. It is impossible for Conservative Members, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South did not even try to do this, to characterise this as a dispute in which revolutionary and agitating people of some militancy have generated support way beyond the boundaries of ordinary people in the profession.

What is significant to anybody who has talked to teachers and sought to understand what they are on about is the depth of feeling among the whole strata of the teaching profession. There is deep and genuine concern among the middle aged, middle class, middle minded teachers in schools who have come to the end of their tether and patience. They genuinely believe that there is no alternative but to take the sort of industrial action that they are taking. That is the nature of the crisis that has been precipitated by the Government. Lack of understanding of the circumstances is creating the log-jam to which the hon. Member so slightingly referred.

Of course it was inevitable that one aspect of the dilemma would be picked on, despite the fact that within our schools there is a widespread drop in morale. It was natural and inevitable that there would be concentration upon pay. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends continually pour cold water upon the setting up of an independent review procedure as though what the teachers are asking for is the thin end of a wedge that will drive a coach and horses through the free collective bargaining procedures. To believe that free collective bargaining procedures can be followed under a Conservative Government is totally absurd. A most rigid form of incomes policy has been practised by this Government under the guise of allowing people to negotiate freely.

However, the Government have established, with the assistance of review procedures that were in force before they came to power, the principle that certain parts of the public sector should be removed from the pay bargaining arena. I do not believe that it is right to draw strict comparisons between the police service and other parts of the public sector. The police service is in a unique position. It was established by statute, and strike action is prohibited by law. Before the implementation of the Edmund-Davies report by the last Labour Government, no independent pay procedure was in force. There is now an independent pay procedure. Quite properly, in my view, the Government decided to take the pay of the police out of the normal bargaining procedures that apply in the public sector in order to remove from a key area of the public sector the ability to take widespread industrial action. The police were provided with a degree of protection that they had never previously enjoyed. However, the police are not the only ones in that position. This applies also to the armed forces and to the fire service, although the fire service is not prohibited by law from going on strike. The fire service has not denied itself the right to strike, but its members' pay is protected under the provisions introduced by the last Labour Government.

The important principle is that there are key public services that all of us wish to be removed from the normal warfare of industrial bargaining. If the fire service, the police and the armed forces fall into that category, we ought, according to the argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, to remove our children from that battleground.

Mr. Malone

I did not understand that the teachers were asking for a permanent system for the independent review of their salaries. They are asking for nothing of the sort. If they were arguing for that, the hon. Gentleman's argument might have some relevance. However, his argument is worthless. That is not what the teachers want. They already have a statutory joint negotiating committee upon which they are well represented.

Mr. Robertson

That is a point which I am sure those who read Hansard tomorrow will read with considerable interest. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that if the teachers were arguing for a permanent review system he might be in favour of it. The principle has already been conceded by the Government. If the Government believe in their own case, they ought to put it before an independent review body, before which the teachers could also put their case. Then somebody outside the narrow arena of those involved in the dispute would be able to come to a conclusion. Many children are being affected by the dispute. The vast majority of the members of the teaching profession in Scotland do not wish any harm to be done to children's education. They have a far deeper conviction about the need to protect children's education than many Conservative Members have or have ever had. Children are being caught in a vice between the understandable frustrations that teachers have experienced over the years and a Government who lack the courage to test their convictions and arguments in front of an independent review body. A reasonable demand is being made and it is reasonable for the people of Scotland to demand that it should be listened to by the Government.

8.35 pm
Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East)

I agree with the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) and for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) that there is a wide area of common concern about this dispute. It encompasses worry about those children who are attending school. Whatever the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South may have said about a particular school, we all know that throughout the length and breadth of the kingdom schools have been affected by the teachers' dispute. It is common ground that we should seek to devise a method by which that dispute can be ended as quickly as possible. However, there is genuine disagreement about how the dispute can be ended.

The Government have been perversely blind about the development of this dispute. Anybody with any eyesight at all would have seen the attempts made by the teachers last year to negotiate a cash settlement with the Government. A settlement then would have helped to allay a considerable amount of the disquiet that was developing at grass roots level within the teaching profession. If a union ascertains by means of a ballot that over 80 per cent. of its members want industrial action to be taken, that is very significant. When such a union by a ballot obtains huge support for industrial action, and also has a tradition of trying to avoid taking industrial action whenever possible, the Government ought to take on board the fact that the reasons for this dispute are so deeply rooted that they must attempt to reach a settlement. To do so, the Government will need to throw overboard some of the obduracy of their approach.

There is quite obvious lack of trust between the Government and the teachers. On 25 March the Secretary of State for Education and Science gave me an answer which contained information relating to primary and secondary school teachers. It showed that, in constant terms, from the time of the Clegg review salaries had decreased in real terms. Teachers have seen an erosion of their standard of living and, something that worries them just as much, they feel that society lacks respect for their profession. If the Minister looks at the information, he will find that in 1980, for secondary school teachers, in constant terms, the value was £11,458, whereas the comparable level is now £10,365. That demonstrates the fall that has taken place.

It is equally interesting to note that the average pay in 1984 for a teacher in the secondary sector, including teachers who had been promoted, was £10,155. I am sure that many hon. Members would be reluctant to accept a salary within that range. Therefore, the Government must answer the real worries of teachers, not just about their pay, but about their position in the league table for pay in three, four or five years' time. Their experience is that unless there is a substantial hitch-up from time to time their standards of pay will be compressed and hammered down. The Government have failed to realise that teachers have reached the end of their tether and can go no further.

The Government have changed their stance on a number of occasions and they have obscured the issue—probably for propaganda reasons —but they have not changed their cash stance. If the Government were to guarantee that the cash would be available to meet a negotiated settlement the teachers would consider their proposals, but they do not have much faith in a Government who have refused an independent pay review. The Government are saying that if terms are agreed with the teaching profession and the employers, they might not be willing to agree with them.

The Government suggest a two-stage settlement. The first is that the teachers should sign a blank cheque, abandon some conditions of service and enter into negotiations with the employers through the negotiating machinery. If a package were agreed between the teachers and the employers, that must meet with Government approval. The Government have carefully made it clear that they will not sanction any such agreement in advance. Having achieved the notional package, the teachers might find that it is shelved, as so many agreements have been in recent years.

If the Government want the teachers to negotiate and to avoid an independent pay review, they should come out from under their cloak of independence. They should accept that they are the paymasters and be prepared to negotiate direct with the teachers. The teachers would then know exactly where they stood. However, the Government are standing back and are not prepared to guarantee that they will meet in full any package which is agreed. In those circumstamces, the teachers would be rash to become involved.

Mr. Malone

Is the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) saying that he would be happy to accept direct negotiations between the teachers and the Government? If he is, it is an important modification of the position which he stated previously.

Mr. Wilson

I am saying that the teachers do not trust the Government to come up with the cash to sustain any package agreed as a result of negotiations. If the Government want the teachers to change their stance on the independent pay review, the Minister must say that he is prepared to meet the cash proposals resulting from that review.

The teachers would be ill advised to enter into negotiations with the Government on both pay and conditions at the same time. Pay and conditions must be considered separately. The urgent need is to settle the pay issue. Once that is settled, it would be appropriate for the Government or the employers to negotiate conditions. It is not desirable for the two issues to be conjoined.

One of the reasons for the teachers' lack of trust in the Government is that the Secretary of State has, within the Scottish budget, insufficient money to meet the pay claim that would be accepted under an independent review. By refusing an independent pay review the Government have underlined that fear. The Secretary of State has already had to readjust his priorities on two occasions in the last financial year, and he would have to approach the Cabinet, well aware of the bounce-on effect on the Department of Education and Science, which also has a pay dispute on its hands. He would have to extract the money from the Treasury, and that is unlikely to be successful. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sufficient clout within the Cabinet to obtain the money necessary to settle the dispute.

In the last few years, pay has declined in real terms. The adjusted curriculum following reports by Munn and Dunning has resulted in additional work for teachers, disciplinary problems because of the phasing out of corporal punishment and composite classes. Teachers can see the education system crumbling because of lack of care and attention.

Mrs. McCurley

Part of the problem is that teachers wish to negotiate pay and conditions. They are complaining about terms and conditions, so how can the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) divorce pay from conditions?

Mr. Wilson

I can easily divorce the two issues, because they are different. Pay has declined in real terms in the last few years. Teachers want that put right, and the Government must put it right if they want to sustain a good education system in Scotland and to provide proper education for our children. That is the primary issue.

Conditions can be more easily taken care of once the pay issue has been resolved. Teachers suspect that they will be asked to trade in many conditions of service, without any real advantage, simply because the Government refuse to make up their pay.

The blame for the dispute rests with the Government. If the Government had any political intelligence or sensitivity they would have seen the dispute approaching on the horizon. The Government have made many political blunders and errors in the last three or four months which have decimated their support and upset their supporters. They have made a mess of the teachers' dispute and caused problems for our children. The blame lies with them and they cannot escape it.

8.47 pm
Mrs. Anna McCurley (Renfrew, West and Inverclyde)

I am a former member of the teaching profession, a former member of a local education committee and a representative in the House of the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association. I am deeply saddened by the strike. I am extremely worried about the effect that it will have on educational prospects for thousands of youngsters. I am also worried about the effect that it will have on employment prospects for those youngsters.

When I heard the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) talk about the care and concern of the teaching profession tonight I was sickened, because only a couple of days ago I read an article which said that the EIS was planning to take the strike into 1986. That means not just one year but three years in which children's education is disrupted in terms of the national examination syllabus. Three separate sets of children will be disrupted.

The dispute is serious and tragic. I do not use the words "teaching profession" lightly. We must consider what professionalism means. Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom where the teaching profession can be called a profession. It has a professional body which governs the conduct of its members—rather like the General Medical Council. I think it is right that as a consequence the people of Scotland expect professional standards from their teachers.

Historically, if not traditionally, teachers are poorly paid. All servants of the state in vocational employment usually are. In the 1930s, teachers were asked, if not required, by the national Government in an economic crisis to take a cut in salaries. One of the reasons no doubt was that women dominated the profession in Scotland. That is probably why they were low paid. In the 1930s and before, women were historically forced to choose between their vocation and marriage, and primary education was dominated by women. It is only in recent years that the colleges of education have granted access to males in the primary section on certification courses.

In the 1970s, the influence of male teachers expanded, and I expect, with the profession then bread-winner dominated, that is why there has been a demand for an increase in salaries. I am certainly not opposed to that. As a former member of the profession, I remember with horror receiving my first pay cheque and realising how lowly paid I was and that the status of teacher must also be very lowly.

However, the Governent, and particularly the Secretary of State, have shown a considerable respect for the profession. Under the aegis of the Secretary of State, the profession has moved to an all-graduate intake. The professional now has to take a degree before he or she becomes a teacher or is part of a degree course.

The demand before the House is to bring the salaries of teachers back into line with the standards that prevailed in the mid-1970s. In the mid-1970s, possibly after the Clegg recommendations, teachers gained a little in standards of pay. Since then, it is not surprising that the little that they gained in the 1970s has been eroded because, upon receiving a reasonable pay increase, they were immediately hit by inflation under a Labour Government, indeed, under a Lib-Lab pact, which affected us all, and if a teacher could not survive with 27 per cent. inflation it is not surprising.

The present strike is the culmination of the frustration of the teaching profession. I have spoken to enough teachers to know that. Teachers want to be given finances commensurate with their status, and with that I agree wholeheartedly. However, today, on a picket line in Gourock outside a hotel, when I was with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, an unattractive and unacceptable section of the teaching profession reared its head: a thoroughly unkempt, untidy mob appeared spewing out invective, with a liberal helping of four-letter words. If I were the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, I would try to get their heads put in a bucket, because I would not like these people to represent my profession. I would attempt to hide them if I was trying to elicit sympathy from the public. It was a disgrace to the many hundreds of educated, cultivated, respectable and responsible people in the teaching profession who have daily care and charge of our children. Many, in fact nearly all, of these teachers are highly dedicated and have a great love of children.

In the beginning of the strike, I believed that it did not have—

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

rose—

Mrs. McCurley

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished this point.

In the beginning, I believed that the strike was not politically motivated. I believed, like others, that it was a natural response to a sorry situation.

Mr. Foulkes

May God bless!

Mrs. McCurley

I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak in the House. I did not realise that I was also to hear him at prayer. I think that it would be more appropriate if he took himself and his prayers elsewhere and, believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he needs all the prayers that he can get.

Not one Opposition Member who has spoken in the debate has condemned selective action but, by jove, if it happened to Opposition Members in another situation they would soon be bleating about it. They would probably have more influence—or perhaps not, I do not know—over the teaching profession. One of the reasons why Opposition Members are particularly thin on the ground tonight and are particularly silent on some aspects of the debate is that they have no sympathy with the teachers.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mrs. McCurley

One reason why they have no sympathy for the teachers is that some of the teachers on the general management committees are the biggest nuisances to some Opposition Members that one could possibly find.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way.

Mrs. McCurley

Another matter that Opposition Members have failed to discuss in the debate is the irresponsible way in which the cadet branches of their party were responsible for a disgraceful scene in George square, Glasgow the other day, where they incited children of under 14 to go out on to the streets and riot, and they are proposing to do the same again. Using children is quite immoral, and the way in which the strike has been organised in certain constituencies against certain Conservative Members of Parliament is also immoral.

Mr. George Robertson

The hon. Lady seems to be drawing a distinction between certain members of the teaching profession, in particular those who were lobbying her and her hon. Friend today, and the vast majority of the profession who she says, as I underlined, are concerned and dedicated teachers. Will she bear in mind the fact that there was a ballot in the dispute, and that over 80 per cent. of the teachers, which must include the vast majority of the concerned, respectable, responsible members of the profession, felt it necessary to vote for strike action? How will she take that on board?

Mrs. McCurley

One reason was that the profession was in a white heat and ignored the prospect of a negotiated settlement. The offer was overridden by the union. Perhaps the teachers thought that there was some advantage in going along with their union to press the point home to the Government. The Government have taken aboard the message about the poor pay of teachers and offered a way out, but the EIS has singularly failed to take it up.

My union — I have pleasure in representing the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association in the House—and other unions are as concerned as the EIS to obtain a solution. The problem is that the members of the EIS appear to be led by the nose by an unrepresentative bunch of deadheads, one of whom in 1961 was voted the most boring man at Glasgow university, and he went on to be voted the most boring man there in 1962 and 1963. For him the strike represents the zenith of his political career to date. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] There are many ways to skin a cat. That member of the Educational Institute of Scotland has chosen a way that will serve to furnish him with the ultimate patronage of a safe Labour parliamentary seat, or perhaps even a higher and greater honour in another House. But he does not seem to be concerned about the future of his members.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has convinced me on many occasions that he is prepared to negotiate with the teachers. There is a flaw in the independent pay review body argument. It is that if somebody outwith the profession—not understanding the nuances involved—struck a rate that the Government could not accept because it was miles above average pay settlements, how would a settlement then be possible? There would be an impasse. The independent pay review body idea has been presented, not only to the profession but to the general public, as a seductively simple-sounding answer.

I want teachers to be paid a salary commensurate with their status. They have said that they now have a more complex job. Negotiations could prove that. People in other professions have obtained negotiated settlements by proving what they had been claiming. The teachers could do the same. I would prefer the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee to be in a position to negotiate terms and conditions. I say that in the belief that the cause for which the teachers are fighting is just and that they could prove it to the Government and public alike.

This is the opportunity for the teachers to prove their claim that they have a more complex and exacting job. Nor should we forget that they have constant in-service training, which occupies more of their time than used to be the case. If the position was presented properly to the teachers by their union's leadership, the teachers would accept it.

As for the bone fide status of the Secretary of State in this too emotive situation, it must be spelled out unequivocally to the majority of teachers in the EIS that the intransigence of their leaders is leading to an NUM-like disaster. The Secretary of State's door is open for negotiations.

For the sake of the future of the children of Scotland and the profession in general, this strike must end soon. If we took the so-called party politics out of the strike, it would end soon. I urge Opposition Members to accept that if the teachers are led up the same path as Arthur Scargill led his miners, the same will happen to them as is happening now to Scargill.

9.4 pm

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden)

I regarded the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) as a sad effort. She seemed to be endeavouring to be like the Prime Minister. Such an attitude does not help the situation that we are discussing. The strike has not been caused, nor is it being prolonged, by party politics. If the hon. Lady believes that it is, she is mistaken. It is the result of a large number of teachers believing that they have a genuine grievance and being committed to their cause. It is not a conspiracy involving the Labour party, the Socialist Workers party or anyone else. It is based upon the commitment of a very large number of teachers. That is the truth of the matter.

I am anxious that some progress should be made in the dispute. I accept that no one would argue that disruption in schools is welcome. No one wants it. The only question that we can consider productively is why it has occurred. We can then see whether there are ways of making progress. Disruption will harm teachers and pupils in the long run, and it will also harm parents. No one would argue on that point.

I do not think that anyone would argue about the basic cause. There has been a severe slippage in teachers' pay over the last few years. Anyone who looks around his own contemporaries and considers the position of those who are teachers and those who have gone into comparable professions will realise that the teachers have done badly. Despite the big rise that was given at the time of Houghton and the boost as a result of Clegg, if I were a teacher who had been teaching in a secondary school in Scotland for eight years and was earning £8,000, I would have considerable problems with my mortgage and family expenses.

That problem has been compounded by the fact that teachers have had to respond, as they were willing and anxious to do, to the Munn and Dunning reforms to the 16 to 18 action plan. They had to cope with that professional challenge at a time when the personal resources which they had to deploy were inadequate and when funding for the education sector was declining.

I do not want to rehearse the arguments in the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday, when we considered what had happened to education finance, but if we compare 1984–85 with 1985–86, we see that there will be a drop in cash terms from £1,763 million to £1,696 million. In real terms, that is substantial. There are counter arguments about declining pupil rolls. No doubt we could argue for many an hour and many a day, and probably will, but if we consider the projections for the next three years to 1987–88, we see that an increase of only £7 million on a budget which stood at £1.7 billion means that in real terms there will be considerable difficulties. The repeated message from Conservative politicians is that there can be more pay for teachers, but that will mean fewer teachers and an increasingly swift deterioration in the pupil-teacher ratio. That is one of the reasons why there has been so much discontent.

What are we to do about it, and how can we make progress? The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde made one useful suggestion. To her credit, it puts her out on a limb almost in comparison with her colleagues. As I understood what she said, she believes that the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee should get on with the job and should be able to arrange a settlement. I took that from her remarks, but I may have been wrong. She went on to imply that when it had reached agreement and negotiated a settlement, that should be it, and it should be implemented. If the Government were prepared to say that—of course, the Government have places on the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee—that would be an enormous incentive to start the kind of negotiations which the Government say they want but which they have done very little positively to encourage.

The Government have more or less said to the teachers, "Go to the joint negotiating committee, negotiate with the employers' side and reach an agreement, but we give no guarantee that we will consider the result favourably. If you come up with something that we regard as a good buy for us, we may consider trying to find additional resources." There is nothing more than a rather dismissive suggestion which in the context of the way in which the dispute has been conducted by the Secretary of State has fairly been interpreted as an invitation to negotiate a settlement which will bring about a substantial deterioration in the conditions of work and which will attract little additional cash from the Secretary of State.

If the negotiating committee, with the Secretary of State's representatives, could reach an agreement, the Secretary of State should indicate his intention of considering it. I do not suggest that he should give a cast-iron guarantee that he would honour it all. That would be asking a lot, because he would not know what would be in it. If he would make genuine, favourable noises about trying to reach a settlement, rather than the luke warn, discouraging noises that we have heard, that would be helpful.

I shall give an example to the Under-Secretary of State, who is looking puzzled. During the last Scottish Question Time I asked the Secretary of State whether the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee could come up with not just a formula which would buy extra money by handing over terms and conditions of employment, but a package which included an improvement in conditions. The right hon. Gentleman said that I had raised an important point, but the best that he could manage was to say that he was neutral at that stage. That is typical of what has happened.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, North-East)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that there is much to be said for going for the Scottish joint negotiating procedure. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) took a similar line. If the only objection to going through that procedure is the fear that the Secretary of State might not fulfil what came out of it, the time to kick, scream and shout and perhaps even take disruptive action would be after that procedure was followed. Surely disruptive action at this stage cannot be right.

Mr. Dewar

The teachers want an independent pay review, and I have a great deal of sympathy for that aim. The Secretary of State has said that it is impossible. I am trying to take a reasonably conciliatory approach —judging by the speeches of Conservative Members, that has not been a mark of this debate so far—to ascertain whether we can make progress and find common ground.

If the Secretary of State is genuine in saying that we should use the established negotiating position—I take it that the hon. Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) agrees—the right hon. Gentleman should do something positive to encourage that. The EIS executive split 13:13 on such a proposal. The Scottish national council of the EIS was summoned to meet on the following Monday. Clearly, there was a possibility at that stage that the EIS would follow that road and watch what happened.

What happened was that there was extraordinary disarray among ministerial ranks, with displays of different lines, approaches and degrees of softness and hardness. Ultimately, a ridiculous series of demands were put out at that crucial time by the Secretary of State, demanding that schools should open at unusual times, that subsidy should be given to private tuition, and so on. I could only interpret that as an attempt to set up a series of standards whereby it could be alleged that local authorities were failing to do their duty, thus enabling the powers under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to be used. Those powers allow the Secretary of State to take action against local authorities for failing to carry out their duty as education authorities.

I am trying to find some rationale in the actions of a Government who are trying to tempt teachers to move from an independent pay review towards genuine negotiation. The Government's effort was amazingly maladroit, and that is the most charitable thing that I can say about it. Our message is that we believe that the teachers have a valid pay claim. That is self-evident on examining the facts. The teachers should have an independent pay review. If there is to be an entrenched struggle—none of us wants this—and if the Government are genuinely to put an offer on the table, the offer must be put forward in a spirit that is attractive to the teachers so that they can consider it in the context of the harsh reality of the industrial dispute.

The Secretary of State has shown a hardening of attitude at all the vital moments, and the offer of which he boasted has turned out to be extraordinarily unattractive to the teachers whose interest he is trying to engage. The offer is not as attractive as Conservative Members try to make it sound.

I would be more impressed if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) were to say that he believes that a substantial pay increase should emerge from the negotiations. If the hon. Gentleman says, for example, that we cannot have an independent pay review, is he saying that the 12 per cent. increase for which teachers in England are asking is reasonable? Is the hon. Gentleman saying, as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde said, that the joint negotiating committee agreement should be honoured? Those are ways in which the deadlock could be broken if the Government are to be obstinate and take a stand against an independent pay review.

Mrs. McCurley

The hon. Gentleman is going soft.

Mr. Dewar

The hon. Lady has been shouting that I am going soft on this issue. I am not soft. I am genuinely interested in ensuring that progress is made. Until now, progress has been obstructed because of the obstinacy of Ministers. If we are to have an opening and turn from an entrenched civil war, which will disrupt our schools over a long period, there must be a much more positive and welcoming approach and recognition of the essential difficulties faced by teachers. If we had such an approach from Ministers, we would perhaps have the kind of progress that the Opposition want.

9.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) on his good fortune in obtaining first place in the ballot and on choosing as his subject an issue which all hon. Members recognise as being of major concern to pupils and parents and, indeed, to the population of Scotland in general. That concern has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties. I recognise that the concern of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is genuine and that he was endeavouring to make a constructive speech.

Time is rather limited and I hope that hon. Members will recognise that it is simply not possible for me in this debate to respond to all the points that have been raised. This debate focuses on the effects of the action. The dispute itself has been discussed previously and the Secretary of State set out the Government's position very clearly in the Scottish Grand Committee yesterday.

May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South, who expressed his sympathy for the teachers, and to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who talked of the strong feelings of teachers, that it is precisely because we are sympathetic and appreciate those feelings that we suggested that the SJNC conduct a substantive review of pay and conditions of service. I must emphasise that the SJNC has a statutory responsibility for both areas, has conducted no such review in the past and has the expertise. That review could have taken place at any time, certainly since the Secretary of State pointed to the possibility. The SJNC could have completed its work by now. There could have been a settlement by now.

To those who say that the Government have been obstinate or unreasonable. I must point out that we emphasised again and again that the methods adopted by the SJNC for such a review were a matter for the SJNC, and that if it wanted separate working parties, that was acceptable to the Government.

In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about a particular method of approach, we indicated that that would have been acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Foulkes

rose—

Mr. Stewart

I apologise to the hon. Member, but I have only five or six minutes left.

I must emphasise that the Secretary of State's offer remains open. This is an offer which has been made to no other group of public sector employees—the offer of considering a review and re-ordering expenditure priorities within existing plans if an attractive package is brought forward from the SJNC. But, of course, that offer becomes more difficult as time passes because decisions are made about expenditure.

It is important that we realise and appreciate the precise position adopted at this crucial stage in the dispute by the various parties. I spelt out the Government's position. The employers, the local authorities—and I must say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) that I did not think from his speech that he thought that the employers really existed in this situation—accept that a rational dialogue within the SJNC on both pay and conditions is the best way forward. They put forward a particular formulation for that. That was acceptable to the Government as a way forward.

Opposition Members have talked in general terms about the teachers' unions, but it is a fact that two of the unions — the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), and the Professional Association of Teachers — have accepted and said publicly that it now makes sense to negotiate in this way. I understand that the position of the fourth union, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers is that negotiations should now start in the normal way on the 1985 pay round.

It is against that background that the Educational Institute of Scotland is continuing to maintain—as my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South and for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde emphasised to the House—that the strikes will go on next year and beyond. That is a no hope position, which the Head Teachers Association of Scotland was reported in the weekend press as describing as the EIS's bleak inflexibility in refusing to discuss conditions of service". I emphasise that the employers have always wanted a link between pay and conditions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South particularly mentioned the targeting of his constituency. The EIS has been open about its targeting of Conservative-held constituencies. That is a disgraceful tactic. It makes the dispute unique. Selected schools in the constituencies of Ministers and Back Benchers have been subjected to a sustained pattern of strike action. Some schools in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been hit for three days a week for up to eight weeks each. That is a totally unfair and vindictive method of making a point, which harms people just because they happen to live in particular constituencies. This tactic of victimisation is unprecedented. To my knowledge, no trade union either in Britain or elsewhere has ever used the strike weapon to attack those who live in particular constituencies. The implications are most serious. I agree that such a tactic is an affront to democracy.

The campaign is cheap to operate, but I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde when she said that the strike was losing the EIS public sympathy. As a nation, we do not like unfairness on such a scale, and the unfairness of the EIS action has been widely acknowledged. The Head Teachers Association of Scotland yesterday described targeting as indefensible. Even the EIS itself has accepted that targeting is unfair. I underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South when he said that this form of action can and will achieve nothing. It is entirely counterproductive. We do not yield to blackmail. The right way is reasoned negotiation.

Strike action and disruption has spread on an intermittent basis throughout Scotland. It does not have the same effect as sustained strike action. The EIS has also struck directly at this year's SCE examinations and, as has been said, it has attempted to cripple curricular reform.

The Government are doing everything possible to counter the effects of the teachers' dispute, particularly to minimise the difficulties for pupils in examination years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South emphasised. We are also doing everything possible in relation to considering the appropriate future for the standard grade, and in pointing out local authorities' obligations. As the House knows, we have been asked to explore action under section 70 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

In conclusion, I must say to the House that the management and two of the unions involved are prepared to—

In accordance with MR. SPEAKER'S Ruling—[Official Report, 31 January 1983; Vol. 36, c. 19]—the debate was concluded.

Mr. Bruce

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you agree that in a debate on such an important subject as this, which arouses considerable interest and concern throughout Scotland, such an issue cannot be fully discussed when a party representing one quarter of the electorate in Scotland has not had an opportunity to contribute. In view of that, I ask whether you will use your discretion in future to allow the issue to be debated in full, for example if an application is made for an Adjournment debate on this subject by myself or one of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker

That is a hypothetical question. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had better try his luck.

The debate has lasted for an hour and a half, and, although I have only just taken my place, I note that only four Back Benchers were called during that hour and a half. As the longest Front Bench speech lasted for only 11 minutes, I conclude that some of the Back Benchers must have been rather greedy.