HC Deb 20 January 1987 vol 108 cc722-5
3. Mr. Watts

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the teachers' pay dispute.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

The Government are determind to see a satisfactory pay structure for teachers within the generous resources that we are prepared to make available. I am continuing to hold meetings with the teacher unions and local authorities.

Mr. Watts

In return for the extremely generous 25 per cent. pay increase on offer, will my right hon. Friend continue to insist on a salary structure that provides for proper career progression so that we can retain and recruit teachers of the high calibre required for the education of our children?

Mr. Baker

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are two elements in the proposals that I brought forward on 30 October. The amount of money involved is £600 million more, which allows an increase of 25 per cent. over 18 months. That is the most generous offer made to any group of public service workers. I must also emphasise the importance of a proper career structure with incentives and promotion posts, not only to recognise greater responsibility, but to recognise good classroom teaching. That is the essence of the proposals that I have put on the table. I very much regret that the unions have not moved to them in any significant or real way.

Mr. Flannery

Does the Secretary of State not realise that by destroying the negotiating machinery through which free negotiation between the teachers' representatives and the Government could have taken place he is doing something that occurs only in areas of tyranny where there are no trade unions? Is it not a fact that the dispute will lapse only temporarily and will then continue, and that every union in this country is now looking closely at the situation because if the Secretary of State has his way unions will be no use at all except as advisory bodies to the Government?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman persists in deliberately misinterpreting the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill that is currently before the other place. The Government introduced that Bill because we recognised that the Burnham negotiating procedure had utterly broken down.

Mr. Flannery

The right hon. Gentleman broke it down.

Mr. Baker

No. With the greatest respect that is not the case. In July there was the Coventry agreement signed by five unions, then there was the Nottingham agreement signed by four unions and just after Christmas only two unions signed up. The problem of trying to deal with teachers' pay and conditions is that agreements have not stood up as agreements, and union support has not stood up as union support. There is a sad background of historic agreements that have turned out to be neither historic nor agreed. That is why the Government have had to act.

Mr. Greenway

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in any future machinery he will have talks with unions currently represented on Burnham as a matter of course? Will he confirm that there must be some room for compromise, if it is possible? Will he continue to talk towards that end, provided that the conditions that he has enunciated so clearly and rightly are met?

Mr. Baker

I re-emphasise what I have said before. My door is open. I have seen various unions. I am seeing the National Union of Teachers tomorrow and I am waiting for further proposals to come forward. My hon. Friend's first point about the representations of certain unions relates not only to teachers' unions but to further education unions. I can give him my assurance in both areas.

Mr. Ashdown

Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), does the right hon. Gentleman realise that for many teachers the issue of pay is now less important than the maintenance of their civil rights? Does he appreciate that no group of workers could countenance or submit to the removal of their rights to negotiate on pay and conditions, and that many of us regard his attempt to remove those rights as a civil liberties issue no less grave than the removal of trade union rights at GCHQ?

Mr. Baker

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position as spokesman for the Liberal party, and, I believe, for the Social Democratic party—I would not want to do him down. I made some inquiries as to whether the hon. Gentleman had ever spoken on education before, but I have not yet been able to turn up anything. Therefore, we could say that he approaches education with a mind that is open, if not blank.

We are not doing away with entrenched union rights. That is not the position. The unions will be free to make representations to the interim advisory committee. After the interim advisory committee has reported, I will be obliged to consult its members either individually or collectively, as I am with the local authority employers.

Mr. Patrick Thompson

Bearing in mind that in matters of education which involve our children it is more important to talk about responsibilities than about rights, and bearing in mind also the importance of reaching a satisfactory solution to the pay dispute as soon as possible, with a good pay structure for our classroom teachers, does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the National Association of Head Teachers should choose this time, of all times, to start talking about extra money on the table for possible extra new responsibilities? Surely this is not the right moment for talk of that sort.

Mr. Baker

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not the right time to bring that up, because in the pay structure that I recommended deputy heads and heads are quite rightly recognised as people bearing considerable responsibility. I have been glad of their support for my proposals.

Mr. Radice

By his complete rejection of the reasonable compromise put forward to him by employer leaders last week the Secretary of State has shown that, all along, he has been intent on imposing his own package, but can he assure parents that ministerial diktat will bring long-term peace to our classrooms?

Mr. Baker

Before Christmas, when I saw Councillor Pearman, I was led to believe that there would be a considerable shift in the employers' and unions' positions. I was glad to hear that. In the event, there was a microscopic shift, which Councillor Pearman confirmed to me only last week. I regret that very much. I thought that it would be a much more significant shift. For various reasons, Councillor Pearman decided not to make any significant change at all. I regret that. However, I have said that I am still willing to talk to him should he wish to speak again on this matter.

Mr. Radice

He offered the right hon. Gentleman a compromise.

Mr. Baker

He did, but the compromise was microscopic. It was so minor that there was no significant change at all. He recognised that it was so small that he did not want to put it forward.