HC Deb 26 February 1987 vol 111 cc469-74

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 2, line 35, at end insert— ( ) An order may make different provision for different cases, including different provision for different areas.

Mr. Dunn

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 6 and Lords amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 11. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 7.

Mr. Dunn

I address this group of Lords amendments in the knowledge that Lords amendment No. 6 enables provision to be made for different cases, including different areas as regards conditions of employment as well as remuneration. This would allow orders to accommodate such variations as may be needed to meet the particular position of the voluntary sector. The amendment was moved in the other place as a Government amendment following representations by interests representing voluntary schools. Different provision for voluntary schools is, in fact, only one case in which different provision may be needed. A difference in conditions of employment could be needed as between ordinary schools and special schools. It is even more likely that a difference will be needed as between teachers In schools and those teachers who do not work in schools, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I am afraid that it is my mistake. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) should have moved amendment (b) before the Minister spoke. I ask the hon. Member for Yeovil to move amendment (b).

Mr. Ashdown

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to stop the Minister in mid-flow. It was a matter that I was happy to leave. I beg to move amendment (b), in line 3, after 'cases', insert 'but only where different provision is made under arrangements existing at the date of this Act.'.

This is a probing amendment. The intention is to maintain the status quo on differentials and not to give the advisory committee, which the Secretary of State has assured us is interim, the possibility of dealing with the question whether there shall be disparities of pay and conditions across the rest of Britain or in certain categories.

When one considers the temporary interim nature—that is what the Secretary of State has assured us is in his mind—one is suspicious because it appears that he has given the advisory committee powers to consider matters of much longer-term importance. As I say, this is a probing amendment because I am somewhat confused by what the Government have said at various times when this matter was discussed. It was discussed on 10 December, at which time the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science said quite clearly that the Government's intentions in the clause were to allow them to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities."—[Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.] That is perfectly clear and seems to set out the current case. I support that and this amendment tries to put it into effect. When Baroness Hooper spoke on this matter in another place, she said: The Government have no radical proposals for regional or other pay differentiation, though that is an issue".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1987; Vol. 483, c. 1229.] However, regional variations and the possibility of such variations were mentioned by the Secretary of State on a number of occasions—certainly outside the House if not inside it. Even the Minister of State, despite the fact that she said originally this was only to cope with London weighting and special provisions in special schools, said: It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important,".—[Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.] What exactly is the Government's intention? The Minister should come clean about that, because Government spokesmen seem to be pointing in different directions according to which audience they happen to be addressing. This matter is vital. If the advisory committee continue the present system under which special pay is allowed for special schools and under which there is a differentiation for London and London weighting, I shall not be very worried.

If the advisory committee were to address the problem whether premiums could be paid to temporary teachers to attract them to areas in which education is suffering because of shortage, we would support that—provided we could find an appropriate way of doing it. If on the other hand the advisory committee does what the Secretary of State often seems to indicate he would like to do — institute a mechanism for regional variations between one area of Britain and another—that would worry all of us and I should be profoundly opposed to it.

Such a regime could serve only further to divide Britain, which is so sorely and sadly divided under this Government. Teachers would be bound to go where they could get the highest pay and there would be further erosion because the best people would leave the north and go to the south of England. That would be divisive for the education system and the nation and would be damaging to the teaching structure. The Government must say clearly whether that is in their mind, and whether it is one of the powers that they would seek to give the advisory committee.

My central point is that if the advisory committee is temporary, interim, transitional—to use the words that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State used today — why should the Government seek to give it powers to investigate matters of long term-consequence to the teaching profession such as regional variations? If it is genuinely temporary and interim, surely it should be allowed to maintain the status quo in this matter. Many people will look at the Minister's answers to discover whether it is the long-term and secret intention of the Government to prolong the life of the advisory committee so that it can draw up damaging regimes to set up a regional differential system for teachers' pay.

Mr. Radice

The Minister should start again.

Mr. Dunn

The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) invites me to start again. I would dearly love to do so, but I am conscious of the pressure of time.

Just before I realised that I was speaking at the wrong time, I was describing some of the differences that might occur between teachers with different responsibilities. I said that it would be even more likely that a difference will be needed between teachers in schools and teachers who do not work in one school, such as peripatetic teachers or those who teach children at home. They are unlikely to be able to attend staff meetings or to take administrative responsibilities in a school. This amendment will allow such a distinction to be made.

The amendment subsumes the power in the previous clause 3(4)(a) to make different provisions about remuneration. That power will be needed in order to pay higher salaries to teachers in special schools than those in ordinary schools, for the social priority allowance for schools in difficult areas, and for the London allowance which, as hon. Members know, has been paid for many years.

I have been asked outside the House whether the Secretary of State intends to use this power. He and I have been surprised at how much fuss has been made about this issue. There has always been a difference in pay between London and other areas. Since 1945—before I was born — a London weighting has been paid. The teacher unions press each year for the weighting to be increased.

Mr. Radice

They are suspicious of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dunn

Suspicious of me? I am one of the most honest and straight person that I have ever met — [Interruption.] I have never invoked parliamentary privilege and I do not intend to do so now. Each year the teachers' unions press for the weighting to be increased. Therefore, they must believe that regional differences are justified.

The reference in this subsection is an enabling provision. The Secretary of State is not required by the legislation to provide for different provision in different areas, but the legislation allows this possibility to be kept open. The alliance amendment as ably moved by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is intended to limit any use of this power to the type of provisions presently in use for differential pay. The hon. Gentleman's amendment — with which I do not agree—clearly makes that point, but this would be an unreasonable constraint on the type of issue which could well be usefully considered by the interim advisory committee. In addition, in terms of conditions of employment, different provision could not be made for different cases. Therefore, it would undermine the very reason why the interests representing voluntary schools asked for the amendment to be made.

Neither the Government nor the Secretary of State intend to bring forward any immediate radical proposals for regional pay differentations. We shall consider carefully whether it is an issue that should be addressed by the advisory committee. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

The Minister's reply will disappoint not only hon. Members but the teacher organisations, because clearly the amendment was intended to probe whether the suspicions of teacher unions and other people were justified. The Secretary of State has confirmed those suspicions, because instead of trying to create good will and trying to break down barriers he has created barriers. He well knows that the teacher organisations and the majority of our people do not favour the development of more regional allowances and an extension of the scheme for London allowances, nor do they favour differential rates for different subjects.

These are extremely contentious areas and the Government want to pretend that this is only an interim measure to bridge the gap across the present problems. They are foolish to bring in new proposals which cause a great deal of anxiety and suspicion. I am worried by the Minister's reference to peripatetic teachers. He said that they would have to be paid at a different rate to teachers whom he suggested turned up at parents' evenings. I know a large number of peripatetic teachers who turn up at staff meetings and parents' evenings. They feel that they have the same responsibilities as other teachers to pass on information to their colleagues and to make sure that parents know about the instruction that pupils are receiving.

The Minister's remarks will give rise to considerable anxiety on the part of teachers who move from place to place if they feel that they might be treated in a different way to other teachers. We are alarmed and dissatisfied by the Minister's response. If he wants to reach a quick agreement about teachers' pay, he should give a clear and categorical assurance that, at least in the first two years, he will not use this procedure or even contemplate using it to enforce different rates of pay and different subject ratings in various parts of the country. He has increased our fears and the fears of the teachers and done nothing to allay the suspicions.

7 pm

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)

One point that causes me great concern is that northern teachers might be tempted to move south if there were regional differentials in pay. Those of us who represent cities in the north are aware that we have major problems in employment. We need improved training to equip our children for the jobs that we hope to develop in the regions. To do that, we have to keep our good teachers in the north and in the provinces. We do not want them to be sucked into the south-east where there is relative prosperity compared with parts of the north. Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to be circumspect in his proposals.

One way in which my hon. Friend could overcome the suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) from a sedentary position would be to call together employers and the trade unions, and to encourage them to hammer out an agreement that would meet the approval of the advisory committee. That might overcome the worries and anxieties that the teachers' lobby expressed today to hon. Members.

It would be a sign of good faith by my hon. Friend that he sees the Bill purely as a temporary measure, whose provisions are not to extend beyond 1990 except with the approval of the House. It will reassure teachers, particularly in the provinces, that their career prospects will at least be equal to those of teachers in London and the south-east. It will also reassure parents in the regions that their good teachers will not be attracted to other parts of the country by higher salaries.

Mr. Dunn

I welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I hope I did not mislead the House earlier. I must make it clear that the Government have no intention of discriminating against peripatetic teachers or those who teach at home. Some of the duties of other teachers may not fall upon peripatetic teachers.

I direct the attention of the House to the debate in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State said: There is a provision for different cases. This will allow us to continue the higher rate of pay in special schools and social priority allowances for the inner cities. It is an important method of ensuring that there arc teachers in schools that are in serious need of an extended number of teachers to help with their special deprivations. Later, she said: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Burnley talked about regional differences. They were concerned about any proposition that there could be different regional pay. Their argument was that the proposed pay structure that should be accepted included sufficient rewards for classroom teachers and there was no need for any incentives for shortage teachers or shortage skills, and no need to get teachers to go into difficult posts by having different scales because it would create difficulties. The Government's argument is the reverse. It is important that individual head teachers can offer special rewards and that individual authorities can examine the possibility of attracting people to areas in which they can pay for shortage teachers or shortage skills that they believe are important, and also that they can get good teachers to take up difficult posts either in inner city areas or in rural areas." — [Official Report, 10 December 1986; Vol. 107, c. 620.]

In another place, when the Lord Chancellor speaks in a judicial capacity he speaks from one part of the Woolsack. When he speaks in a political capacity, he takes a step to the left or the right; I cannot remember which. I should almost like to do the same. In joining debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West, I must remind him that the problems of recruitment because of the high price of housing in the south-east, which I represent, are in no way less severe than those in the region to which he has referred and in which I was born.

In the light of recent developments, I hope that the House will accept the Lords amendment and reject the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).

Mr. Ashdown

The Minister has put his case with his usual urbane charm and in a very civilised manner. Of course, lurking underneath are the concerns which, as was said by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), have not been put to rest. I hope the Minister listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), who spoke with considerable cogency and put the case with great effect. Nevertheless, for the convenience of the House, although I do not wish this to be taken to indicate our consent to regional differentials, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Back to
Forward to