HC Deb 17 November 1986 vol 105 cc309-12 3.34 pm
Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the agreement reached between the employers and the teachers unions on pay and conditions on Saturday morning.

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

Early on Saturday morning four of the teacher unions reached an agreement on teachers' pay and conditions with the employers' representatives. Two of the unions rejected the agreement. We are considering the current draft text of the agreement against the criteria which I have already outlined twice to the House and in due time I will inform the House of the Government's decision.

Mr. Radice

Is not the real reason for the Secretary of State's short and totally inadequate response that neither he, nor the Prime Minister, nor the Cabinet as a whole expected the talks to succeed? Only last Thursday the Secretary of State was deriding the talks as a fiasco. Should he not have the grace to congratulate the local authority representatives, especially Mr. John Pearman, and the teachers' leaders, on their drive, determination and common sense, which has led to this far-reaching and comprehensive agreement?

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his Cabinet colleagues that the agreement, for the first time, provides decent pay for classroom teachers while maintaining an adequate promotion ladder; for the first time, sets out teachers' duties; for the first time, creates a system of teachers' appraisal; for the first time, draws up a plan for reducing class size; and for the first time creates bargaining machinery which links pay and conditions?

Will the Secretary of State remind his Cabinet colleagues also that agreement, backed by unions which represent two thirds of teachers, is far more likely to stick than is, a settlement which is imposed from above? For the sake of a slightly different pay structure and a relatively small extra cost— barely £50 million over the next 18 months in Government contribution—is it worth risking all the problems and potential disruption that could result from an imposed settlement? The government should put peace in the classroom and the nation's children first, and back this agreement.

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this agreement is not complete. A full agreement does not at this stage exist. It is a draft text and some important details, such as the duties of heads and deputy heads, remain to be finalised. I understand that a further draft will emerge during this week. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient—he knows that I am a patient man. I heard only just before I came into the Chamber that the ACAS negotiations are starting again at 10.30 am this Wednesday.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth)

As no general agreement has emerged after 100 hours of discussions at Nottingham, and bearing in mind the disarray in teacher unions at this stage, how optimistic is my right hon. Friend that a speedy end to the dispute will be found? What advice would he give parents whose children may again be sent home from school as a result of the dispute?

Mr. Baker

Some progress has been made, but there are major points of concern — first on cost, and especially about the shape of the pay structure. There is a considerable gulf between the proposals which I put forward and the proposals which appeared in Saturday's draft text.

Mr. Clement Freud (Cambridgeshire, North-East)

As the Secretary of State was so keen to move in and make conditions, and bearing in mind that the employers have gone a long way towards finding a solution that is to his taste, does the right hon. Gentlemn agree that it ill becomes him now to be less than magnanimous? Will he bear in mind that the parents of the country will think that it is he who is being unreasonable?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman also must await the outcome of the negotiations. I hope that he also will be concerned with the type of pay structure that is emerging. These negotiations are not just about the pay deal for this year or next year—they concern the pay structure that will operate for the teaching profession for the rest of the century. It is important to get a pay structure which rewards the good classroom teacher and provides real incentives for the young, able and energetic teacher.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the whole House supports his thoughtfulness over the deal that was concluded on Saturday morning and his determination to think about it before coming to rapid conclusions, bearing in mind that for two years the negotiations have got nowhere and that the Labour party has done nothing to press for a rapid conclusion? Does he accept that schools will not run smoothly unless heads and deputy heads are properly motivated and paid, and teachers are paid proper differentials for proper responsibility? Does he agree that if everything goes on the bottom of the scale the benefit will often go to those who leave the profession early, and not to the long-term stayers, whom we so urgently need?

Mr. Baker

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. My proposals provide three promotion tiers in primary schools and five in secondary schools for classroom teachers. They mean that half the profession would be above the basic grade. In the proposals in the draft agreement reached on Saturday, the comparable figure is just one third.

Mr. Ken Eastham (Manchester, Blackley)

Bearing in mind the statement made this afternoon by the Secretary of State, is it not obvious to the House that the right hon. Gentleman is well informed of the developments to date? Will he not tell the House how, in his opinion his proposals are better than those submitted by the management?

Mr. Baker

I have just replied to that question. On the question of the pay structure, teachers who have worked hard for promotion as good classroom teachers get only limited recognition for their effort under the proposals in the draft text. They create little incentive for a career in teaching. I ask hon. Members to reflect on which other profession has a career structure where the rewards above the basic scale are as low as 5 and 14 per cent.

Mr. Reg Prentice (Daventry)

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who are concerned with the future of the education service are not engaging in merely political posturing? Will he draw a contrast between the careful, thorough, study that he is giving to the proposals this afternoon and the hostile knee-jerk reaction of union leaders and labour leaders on the employers' side to his recent proposals?

Mr. Baker

Yes. Within five minutes of making my proposals on 30 October the NUT and Mr. Pearman said that they would ignore them. These negotiations have lasted for seven days and will be resumed later this week. It would be quite wrong of me to react quickly to what is still only a draft text.

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

Does the Secretary of State accept that the leaders of the unions have spent a good deal of their time restraining the anger of their membership caused by the behaviour of his predecessor? Does he also accept that union leaders and employers have worked patiently and hard to move as far as they can towards a full agreement, and that he as Secretary of State has an unique opportunity now to co-operate with the employers and the unions to settle the dispute, which has done so much damage to our children?

Mr. Baker

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would not wish to see a return to disruption in our schools, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the only bodies which can oppose disruption are the teachers' unions.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West)

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the settlement of the dispute must include salary arrangements which stop the drift of specialist teachers into industry and start to attract people from industry back into the teaching profession where they are needed?

Mr. Baker

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The structure of the profession, the rewards available and the incentives that will be available are absolutely central to the present discussions. As I have said, under my proposals half the profession would be eligible for some incentive reward, whereas under the proposals reached on Saturday only one third of the profession would he eligible. It is clear that my proposals provide a better opportunity and career for young, able and dedicated teachers.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Does the Secretary of State realise that, despite his crude intervention at a delicate stage in the negotiations, the teachers have had enough sense to try to unify themselves in a difficult situation and have finally succeeded in doing so? Does he recognise that if he is as crude as he has been in the past fortnight, it will be he who will disrupt the schools, and that the entire nation will see the matter clearly for what it is?

Mr. Baker

I really cannot be acused of crude intervention when replying to a private notice question.

Mr. Malcolm Thornton (Crosby)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital to ensure that there are no loose ends in the negotiations and that the discontent among teachers is laid to rest once and for all? Will he assure the House that in no circumstances will there be a recurrence of the post-Houghton situation, in which an agreement on pay was made but delivery of conditions was not?

Mr. Baker

The recognition that pay and conditions must be negotiated together is an important measure of progress. The unreality of pay being negotiated by one body and conditions by another is now behind us. I believe that there is also recognition that the Burnham machinery must go, although I appreciate that there are considerable differences of opinion about what should follow it.