HC Deb 04 March 1986 vol 93 cc141-3
11. Mr. Sean Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he makes of the level of public pressure for greater spending on education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph)

I have no doubt that there is considerable public pressure for higher standards in education, and for the best possible return on the resources invested in the education service. The Government will continue to work towards those aims.

Mr. Hughes

In view of the recent comment by the Minister of State that one of the reasons for lack of increased public expenditure on education is lack of public pressure, will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is telling the truth? If the money has been available, why has the right hon. Gentleman spent the past 12 months telling us that there are insufficient funds to pay teachers the extra money they want? If the funds have not been available, what is the point in the comments of the Minister of State?

Sir Keith Joseph

The Government take the view, which I think is shared by the majority of people, that teachers deserve more pay for effective teaching, but that teachers should also carry out the duties they have habitually carried out in the past, minus midday supervision, but plus appraisal. The Government are making substantial extra sums available over and above the annual pay awards to achieve that dual purpose. The money is still available to provide more pay for effective teaching, provided the teaching unions agree to duties being part of the contract.

Surely it is obvious to all hon. Members that there is public pressure for many aspects of public spending. There is immense pressure for many more services and it is the duty of the Government of the day to sort them out into some order of priority. The fact that the Government have found additional money for teachers' pay, subject to the conditions that I have already described, is a recognition of that duty.

Mr. Key

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his words are welcome, particularly to those who believe that more money should be made available for education? Will he also accept that higher priority should be given to education in the overall political arena and that the majority of teachers, as represented by their unions on the teachers' side of the panel, accept that more money means acceptance of conditions relating to assessment and so on? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the implications of the ACAS talks?

Sir Keith Joseph

I agree with all of my hon. Friend's comments. As for his question about ACAS, we must all hope that yesterday's agreement will lead to fruitful negotiations.

Mr. Flannery

When will the Secretary of State admit that school standards are now higher then they have ever been?—[Interruption.] It is typical that the voices raised against that reality are those of Conservative Members. When will the Secretary of State realise that he is not paying teachers what they are worth, that they recognise him as the real enemy and that they make that clear in all of their organisations? When will he also realise that teachers do a vast amount of work for which there is no overtime, that they are going back to work embittered and angry, and that it will all happen again within a very short period of time?

Sir Keith Joseph

The Government have set aside substantially more money for the pay of effective teachers, on the conditions that I have described. That is the reality. No amount of vituperation from the hon. Gentleman will change it. As for school standards, there are many good schools, but there is surely, by common agreement, scope for improvement.

Mr. Mark Carlisle

As regards yesterday's settlement of the teacher's pay dispute, does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers has shown yet again that it is prepared to do damage to children's education and harm to teachers as a body? Has not the time come to remind individual teachers who are concerned about their individual professional standards and who are anxious to obtain higher salaries that they can join other unions instead?

Sir Keith Joseph

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that the behaviour of the National Union of Teachers seems to be appalling. It is willing for its members to take the money that has been negotiated by the other unions and the employers, but to continue the disruption. It is urging its members to stand in the way of the reform talks that we so patently need. I regard the NUT's position as utterly indefensible.

Mr. Benn

Has the Secretary of State turned his mind to the fact that in Japan only 1 per cent. of the national income is spent on defence and that one of the reasons why Japanese research and development and the manufacture and sale of high technology are more successful than ours is that we spend 6 per cent. of our national income on defence and thus divert money away from many things, including proper investment in education?

Sir Keith Joseph

But does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Japanese Government and people do that only because they have accepted total protection from the United States? Would the right hon. Gentleman support a move by this country towards that kind of policy?

Mr. Latham

Regarding capital spending, which is very important to parents, would it not help my right hon. Friend to deal with this pressure if a rather higher proportion of capital receipts were made available to local education authorities to spend in their own areas?

Sir Keith Joseph

Yes, indeed, and if it were possible that would make the Government that little bit more popular. But the trouble is that when that policy was adopted two or three years ago the local education authorities together spent £1,000 million more than they had warned they would spend, which came near to wrecking the national economy.

Mr. Radice

Does the Secretary of State understand that parents are rightly asking for more books, more equipment and more effective teaching, so as to raise standards in schools? Why does the Prime Minisster seem concerned only with educational red herrings, such as vouchers and privatisation, which will do nothing to help the vast majority of pupils? When will the Government acknowledge that all our children should have the right to good quality education?

Sir Keith Joseph

The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman seems only to have read half of the annual report by HMI, which said that there was too little spending on books in many local education authorities, but went on to say that, with better management by many local authorities, money now wasted could be redeployed in favour of books, equipment and maintenance.