§ 13. Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the action which he is taking to promote peace, stability and progress in Scotland's schools.
§ Mr. John MacKayI refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the Main report made by my right hon. and learned Friend on 30 October.
§ Mr. HirstI thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the position of the SSTA, in seeking negotiations with Ministers rather than resorting to strike action, is infinitely preferable to the position of the other union, which has threatened to impose disruptive and vexatious action on schools in Scotland as a result of strikes?
§ Mr. MacKayI agree with my hon. Friend. The SSTA came to talk to my Department about a number of specific concerns. I would be delighted if the EIS would like similar discussions, but the position remains that the formal negotiations are with the Scottish joint negotiating committee, and we have urged all along that the negotiations should take place.
§ Mr. Willie W. HamiltonIf the EIS ballot result is as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has suggested, will the Secretary of State cease to adopt this holier-than-thou attitude in blaming everybody but himself for the teachers' situation? Does he not recognise that if he does not exercise some flexibility and humility in these matters, the fault for the ensuing strike will be his and not the teachers'?
§ Mr. MacKayI cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I am not in the least surprised to hear him make such an accusation. Obviously, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I will have to study the details of the ballot, but although there has been a no vote, as I understand it, that leaves the door open to negotiations, and that is what we are urging. Surely that is what all parents will want.
§ Mr. DewarI am glad the Minister has said that he would welcome negotiations. All of us, particularly in the light of what appears to be an overwhelming vote of no confidence in the Government's proposals, want to find a way forward—certainly every Labour Member wants to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we, too, want to see negotiations started? However, the Minister cannot argue that there should be negotiations while imposing on negotiations conditions so restrictive as to mean that they have to produce the same result as the offer that has been rejected. On what basis will the Minister welcome negotiations, and on what basis, and with what remit, will he allow the parties to sit down at the negotiating table?
§ Mr. MacKayIf the hon. Gentleman were to re-read what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said on 30 October, he would see the basis on which 261 we can move ahead. However, it is clear that the overall cost laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and the timing of the two phases of the pay increase are not negotiable, but that still leaves a good deal of room for manoeuvre. The SSTA clearly felt that when it came to discuss this. Within these parameters, we can discuss something, and something could be negotiated on the SJNC.
§ Sir Russell JohnstonIs the Minister aware that that is not good enough and that he must now admit that the Government were wrong to break up the Main proposals? Is not the only hope of securing some peace to recognise this, because the outcome of that ballot has been a devastating rejection of the Minister's proposals?
§ Mr. MacKayThe hon. Gentleman says that, but he may recall that EIS meetings were rejecting the Main proposals before my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 30 October. I understand that part of the ballot rejects the Main proposals. The EIS has gone a long way to throw out the proposals of this independent committee. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that we accept the main points of this proposal. Our only point is that the overall cost and the timing in two phases have to be within the terms of the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We started with a point of order and I have allowed injury time on this question. We have three questions to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, so we may be able to return to question 14 if there is time.