HC Deb 02 December 1986 vol 106 cc754-7
4. Mr. Hicks

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest position regarding the teachers' pay and conditions of service negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker)

Over the weekend a National Union of Teachers special conference voted narrowly to accept the proposals in the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service document signed by the local authorities and some teacher unions. The NUT is now balloting its members. Local authorities meet today to discuss the proposals. I remain willing to hold further discussions with the local authorities and any of the teacher unions.

Mr. Hicks

I support my right hon. Friend's objectives in encouraging responsibility and rewarding the good classroom teacher. However, will he accept that there is a genuine predicament in the case of the good classroom teacher teaching in our excellent smaller schools in villages and market towns? Having achieved the maximum after nine years, they could well find themselves locked in and their chances of subsequent promotion very limited.

Mr. Baker

One of the major flaws of the ACAS proposals is exactly that. I am sure that it would affect adversely the small primary school. Under the ACAS proposals there would be no promoted posts in about three quarters of primary schools. Therefore, there would be no incentive for teachers to do well unless they sought to become a head or a deputy. However, deputies in the small schools would get only £5 a week more than the main professional grade teachers under the ACAS proposals.

Mr. Fatchett

Since his statement last week, and in his reply to the earlier question, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is prepared to meet the employers and the unions, and that he is prepared to be flexible about his own suggested imposed settlement. Will the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the areas of his settlement that he is prepared to be flexible about?

Mr. Baker

In the meetings that I have had with Councillor Pearman and the unions so far—another union has asked to see me next week—I have made clear the conditions behind the Government's position, which is that any offer should come within the cost envelope of some £600 million for this year and next year, and must have a sufficient number of incentive posts in it to ensure a good career structure for the young, able and energetic person who wants to become a teacher.

Mr. Pawsey

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of parents and, I suspect, teachers, will welcome the introduction of legislation that will bring some form of order into the chaos that currently surrounds negotiations on teachers' pay? Will my right hon. Friend further accept that once the legislation is on the statute book it will be warmly welcomed as a means of preventing further disruption in our schools to the disadvantage of our children?

Mr. Baker

When the definition of the teacher's job—contained in appendix 1 of the ACAS document—is in force, it will be clear what teachers should and should no do. It will be out of order and a breach of contract if they indulge in the sort of disruptive action that has so damaged schools, the education of our children, and the reputation of the teaching profession.

Mr. Freud

Does the Secretary of State accept that one cannot impose a solution on teachers? Will he reassure the teachers who want to see him that not only his door but his mind will remain open?

Mr. Baker

I have made that absolutely clear, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is a spokesman for the Liberal party. Since I have held this post, I have listened to what he has said. I have yet to distinguish any issue concerning education on which the Liberal party's views differ from those of the Labour party. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in the career structure of the profession, there must be proper incentive posts and proper rewards. I should have thought that that was one of the elements of Liberal thinking such as we know it.

Mr. Haselhurst

Does my right hon. Friend sense that he is very close to an agreement which will satisfy the majority of teachers, and certainly the majority of the public? Does he agree that, in the end, the prize will be more glittering if he can achieve a settlement by agreement?

Mr. Baker

Certainly. That is why I said that my door remains open. What Mr. McAvoy said has made the situation more difficult. Following the NUT conference, Mr. McAvoy, the deputy general secretary, said: There is no likelihood of our agreement being changed as far as the NUT is concerned. He added: It was 'sad' other unions felt there was an alternative. He then said: There is an alternative—and that is a return to action and disruption". I utterly deplore that statement made by a major figure of the NUT.

Mr. Barnett

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as Secretary of State, perhaps his most important priority is to get the confidence of the teaching profession as a whole? Does he agree that he will do that only if he is prepared to negotiate, listen to what the teachers say and recognise that their view about the way in which salary scales should be organised must be taken seriously if he is to gain their confidence?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, in this matter, there is no collective view of the profession. Two unions did not approve the draft document. Since then, other unions have made it clear to me that they do not agree with an element of the structure. There is no agreed professional view of the position. That problem has been inherent in the trouble for the past two years. There has been very muddled progress over that period, as the unions and the local authority employers have not been able to agree. Alas, that is still the position. That is why we have to introduce a Bill. That is why I have to make the Government's position clear.

Mr. Greenway

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is said that some 1 million people are incapable of correctly filling in their applications for British Gas shares? Does this not show that their education was somewhat inadequate? Does it not point to a clear need for a total restructuring of the salaries of professional teachers and of their conditions of service so that this does not occur in future?

Mr. Baker

There must be other objectives to the education system than a facility to fill in prospectuses. None the less, I agree with my hon. Friend. There is considerable disquiet about the quality of education at all levels in our schools. The dispute is an important opportunity to improve the quality of the teaching profession. We must not forgo that opportunity.

Mr. Flannery

The Secretary of State, in his first answer, avoided the issue. He did not make it clear what was the issue at the recalled conference of the NUT, at which I was present. The issue was not his offer. The teachers are united in their disagreement with it. The issue was the employers' offer, which, with the union's agreement, still has to be submitted to the right hon. Gentleman. One hundred thousand or so people did not agree with that offer—which is far better than the Secretary of State's offer—and 125,000 did agree with it. The important word in the main question is "negotiations". If the Secretary of State tries to impose his will on all the unions without negotiations, he will unify them, and he will disrupt schools once again.

Mr. Baker

One must appreciate that the NUT has made it clear that it is not prepared to move at all. It has not moved since Coventry. That is what the deputy general secretary of the NUT said. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the NUT. Does he agree with the sentiment: There is an alternaive—and that is a return to action and disruption"?

Mr. John Townend

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the past decade there has been a considerable improvement in the teacher-pupil ratio, without an equivalent improvement in the quality of education? If so, will he resist the demands for more teachers and more free periods and concentrate the available resources on rewarding good teachers who are conscientious and accept responsibility?

Mr. Baker

I agree with my hon. Friend that there has been an improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio from 18.9:1 to 17.6:1 while we have been in office. I also agree that that has not necessarily been accompanied in all our schools by an improvement in the quality of education. I think that all hon. Members are concerned about that. The whole thrust of the Government's and my proposals is to improve the quality of the teaching profession by having proper incentives and rewards for at least half the profession, whereas the ACAS proposals cover only a third of the profession.

Mr. Skinner

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 23 September this year he said to a meeting of educationists, "I worry about the present extension of central control. I want more decisions to be taken at the rim of the wheel and fewer at the hub"? If so, why is the right hon. Gentleman poking his nose into the teachers' negotiations?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman must realise that only 10 minutes ago my hon. Friend the Minister of State was being pressed to interfere in the wage negotiations in our universities. I stand by exactly what I said. The hon. Gentleman will see, if he studies the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, the very wide, extensive reforms that we are introducing to increase the power of head teachers and governors. That is what I want to do, but the Labour party is opposed to it.

Mr. Favell

Does my right hon. Friend feel that the time has come to remove the local authorities from the pay equation? After all, the teachers want to negotiate national conditions and the people want national curricula and national standards in our schools.

Mr. Baker

There is little doubt that there is a move, which I support and will encourage, towards national curricula. As regards the future of determining teachers' pay and conditions, the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Monday, will set out our proposals for an interim advisory committee. I am sure that many people will welcome the fact that the Burnham negotiating machinery is coming to its end.

Mr. Radice

Is the Secretary of State prepared to accept any modification at all to his proposals, or is he merely delaying until he has got his legislation through Parliament so that he can impose a settlement on the teachers and the employers? We are entitled to know the answer.

Mr. Baker

The answer is that on 30 October I set out the Government's conditions and provided a further £600 million. Since then there has been no move towards the Government's position. Some of the unions are saying to me that they would like to reconsider their position. I am willing to listen.