Teachers' Dispute (Hansard, 26 February 1986)

§ 12. Mr. Douglas
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on meetings between his office and the Churches in Scotland on the current dispute in Scottish schools.

§ 13. Mr. Foulkes
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent discussions with the Church representatives and the parties involved in the teachers' dispute.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
My right hon. and learned. Friend had a useful exchange of views with representatives of the Churches on 10 February. He emphasised that any final package had to deal with teachers' duties and conditions of service as well as pay, and said that he recognised that a balance had to be struck between the aspirations of both sides if an early end to the dispute was to be found. He expressed the hope that the negotiations between teachers and employers would now begin on the basis of the resources available.

§ Mr. Douglas
Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary admit that it was the Churches in Scotland that met the Secretary of State and that they showed an inclination and desire to preserve the distinctiveness of Scottish education? Does lie therefore agree that no comparison should be made between negotiations in England and Wales and the Scottish position? He ought to know, and the Secretary of State ought to recognise, that the Scottish teachers are determined to have their claim conceded, and the Minister ought to take some action to get this vexatious dispute settled as soon as possible.

§ Mr. Stewart
The House will recognise that the Scottish Churches have had a long interest in education. The hon. Gentleman referred to conceding the teachers' claim, but the teachers have not put in a claim.

§ Mr. Foulkes
Does the Minister agree that while the Churches' initiative is greatly welcome, the complicated tripartite nature of these negotiations makes agreement particularly difficult? Will he confirm that he has received the suggestion from a number of quarters, including myself, that the appointment of an independent conciliator, who could identify the position of all the parties involved, as well as the level of flexibility on this issue, might help towards an agreement? Does he agree that there is nothing to be lost, and possibly everything to be gained, by the appointment of a conciliator, and will the Government give this further consideration?

§ Mr. Stewart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout this dispute he has made one or two constructive suggestions and he has generally received a 939 much more favourable response from the Government than from the EIS. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the NAS/UWT has suggested that the Scottish dispute should be referred to ACAS, but the EIS has refused.

§ Mr. Kennedy
Does the Minister agree that during this long, drawn-out and damaging dispute, the running has increasingly been made by initiatives from the Churches, all the Opposition parties in Scotland and other interested bodies? As all the Opposition parties, and the Churches, were willing to give the Secretary of State every possible support, or at least every good wish, in bringing in a new broom to settle the dispute, it is a matter of profound disappointment that, although the personalities may have changed, the tune remains the same? Can the Minister offer something more constructive?

§ Mr. Stewart
I repudiate what the hon. Gentleman has said. The Government have taken initiative after initiative to try to resolve the dispute. The problem with the dispute in Scotland is that the EIS refuses to enter into normal pay negotiations by putting in any pay claim. It also refuses to negotiate on the basis of the type of pay and conditions package that has been put forward by the Labour-led education authorities. The sooner realistic negotiations start to resolve the dispute, the better.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Does my hon. Friend agree that, like parents, the Churches have a real interest in finding a solution to the problem? Does he agree that the only solution that could make any sense is one that embraces conditions so that we know exactly what teachers are being paid for and, more important, one that ensures that teachers are rewarded adequately for what they do?

§ Mr. Stewart
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the smaller unions have at various times suggested pay and conditions packages. I understand that the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association recently put forward such a package and that it was rejected by the EIS.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke
Is the Minister aware that, when I joined parents in Lenzie in my constituency a week last Saturday, in extremely cold weather, they supported the Churches' initiative and the teachers and had great difficulty understanding why the Government will not agree to an independent pay tribunal? They concluded that that was the Government's stance because they know that an independent inquiry would be bound to support the teachers' case.

§ Mr. Stewart
Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and in the rest of Scotland, want the dispute ended. The Government and the education authorities, including those led by the hon. Gentleman's party, have consistently and rightly said that a lasting resolution of the dispute must involve conditions of service as well as pay. I believe that the great majority of teachers now realise that. I urge the EIS to enter into negotiations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson) said, the submission of a normal pay claim would at least get negotiations under way. That would be a major step forward.