UNIVERSITY PAY REVIEW BODY

HC Deb 03 March 1992 vol 205 cc224-39

The Secretary of State shall establish a pay review body for university academic and academic-related staffs.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Straw

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Hon. Members will note that the clause stands in the name of my hon. Friends and me and, I am pleased to say, three Liberal Democrats, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr). It proposes that a pay review body shall be established by the Secretary of State for university academic and academic-related staffs.

The proposition that university staffs should have a pay review body was widely supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The official Opposition were asked about our attitude towards a pay review body in June 1991, and I was happy to reply to the secretary of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the general secretary of the Association of University Teachers that the Labour party in government would establish a pay review body. I shall read from the letter that I wrote to those bodies setting out the terms on which a pay review body for university academic staff would be established.

Since then—indeed, just over a month ago—the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) tabled early-day motion 597 proposing that there should be such a review body. I am astonished that, having gone to the trouble of tabling that motion, the hon. Gentleman is absent today.

Mr. Fatchett

He is in China.

Mr. Straw

I note what my hon. Friend says. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is an assiduous attender here. Whatever else he may be learning from the Chinese Government, I suspect that the People's Republic does not yet have a pay review body for university academic staff. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) murmurs that there is a review body for everybody in the last state on earth which still practices democratic centralism.

The early-day motion says: That this House acknowledges the important contribution that universities have made to the country's economic and social well-being; recognises the productivity and efficiency gains that they have achieved as numbers have risen by 8.7 per cent. in 1991; is conscious that Britain's system of higher education is one of the finest in the world and is rightly held in great esteem; recognises that pay review bodies which cover such groups as doctors, dentists and school teachers do, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, enhance professionalism and the raising of morale; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish a pay review body for university academic and related staffs. It was signed by 71 hon. Members, of whom 56 were Conservatives. I understand why the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West is absent—he is in China—but I doubt whether the other 55 are on that trip.

The fact that only two of the Conservative Members who signed the motion are present to debate that important motion shows their lack of seriousness of purpose. We shall look with even greater interest later this evening to see how many of those 56 hon. Members go into the Lobby to support the proposal. I suspect that they thought that they could sign an early-day motion and tell their local papers that they were supporting it, but when it comes to the simple straightforward proposition that the Secretary of State should establish a pay review body for university academic and related staff, on the recommendation of the Minister and through the Whips, all those Members will be dragooned into the Lobby to vote against the proposal. It is highly probable that few of those 56 Conservative Members will even know what they are voting about.

I wish to place on record the body of a letter that I wrote to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers on 25 July 1991. I said: After consultation with Labour's Treasury Team, I am pleased to confirm that a Labour government would, as soon as practicable, establish a Pay Review body for university academic and related staff. This would be in respect of pay. I should like to consider further the question of how issues of conditions should best be settled, and I should be glad to have your views on this, as well, of course, those of the CVCP"— that particular copy of the letter was to the AUT. The letter continued: This Review Body would operate in a manner similar to already established Review Bodies, such as the Doctors' and Dentists'. A Labour government would undertake, as in the case of other review bodies, to implement the Review Body's recommendations unless there were clear and compelling reasons to the contrary. The present government is proposing the amalgamation of the funding councils, and the end of the distinction between universities and polytechnics. We support both these proposals, and would implement them. This has clear implications for polytechnic staffs. I am therefore sending a copy of this letter to the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics, National Association Teachers in Further and Higher Education, and the Association of Polytechnic and College Teachers to seek their views on future pay settlement arrangements for polytechnic staff. It would seem to me that there would be considerable advantage in having unified pay settlement arrangements for all higher education academic staff, though there are plainly some transitional matters which would have carefully to be considered. My announcement on 25 July last year that a Labour Government would establish a funding control for academic and related staff in universities has been widely welcomed. The present system for settling university teachers' pay is byzantine. With the revenue support grant, it reminds one of the Schleswig-Holstein issue. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), is a historian and will know exactly what I mean, if not the answer to the problem. The system of committees A and B and their 27 reports is obscure and has not worked to the advantage of the universities or university academic staff. There has been no parity as to exactly who is the employer, nor much clarity about the nature of the settlements.

7.45 pm

The Under-Secretary of State, when he replies to the debate, may say that, although university teachers are paid principally from public funds, their employer is not central or local government but the universities, which rightly have a high degree of autonomy from the Government at a national level. That should not be an overwhelming problem in the settlement of university teachers' pay by a pay review body. Doctors and dentists are not directly employed by Whitehall, by the Department of Health in their case.

Those who work in district health authority hospitals are paid by regional health authorities and those who work in opt-out trusts are paid by opt-out trusts. The fact that their employers are legally separate from the Department of Health has not prevented their pay from being settled by the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Review Body. General practitioners and dentists are self-employed. Nevertheless, the DDRRB settles the parameters of their pay.

A similar if not exact parallel exists in respect of school-teachers. Their pay and conditions are settled by a review body. In the past they were settled by central negotiating machinery under the Burnham arrangements. The employers of teachers in county schools are local authorities and the employers of teachers in voluntary-aided schools are various boards and voluntary-aided trusts. I hope that the Minister will not make heavy weather of the fact that university teachers are not directly employed by the state, because other groups who are the subject of pay review arrangements are not employed by central Government and the arrangements appear to work well for them.

Another important issue that I raised in that letter was whether a review body for university academic staff should include consideration of conditions as well as pay. The school teachers pay review body is unique in that it is statutory and considers conditions as well as pay. The other review bodies consider only pay and conditions are left for separate, usually across-the-table negotiations.

The specific commitment that I have given on behalf of a future Labour Government is that a review body for university and related academic staff would consider pay alone. As I said in my letter to Diana Warwick and to the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, we would consider whether conditions should also be included in a review body's terms of reference. My initial view is that it would be better for conditions to be separately negotiated and that the parallel with the doctors and dentists review body should best apply.

At present, because polytechnics have been a separate system, their pay is negotiated separately. There has been much need for the settlement of polytechnic staffs pay at a polytechnic rather than a national level. Naturally, there will be transitional problems as the polytechnics become fully fledged universities, both in respect of their funding arrangements—there has been a different methodology for those—and in respect of the settlement of their pay.

If we are to make the polytechnics fully fledged universities with the same funding methodology as universities, it seems essential that once the transitional period is complete they should have the same systems for settling pay. Whatever the House decides is appropriate for one side of the old sector should apply to both. In our judgment, the review body should cover all staff within the new univeristy sector once the higher education funding council is established. A question mark will remain over those Higher Education Funding Council staff employed in non-university institutions. For the sake of tidiness, if nothing else, we believe that the pay review body should also cover those individuals.

We had some interesting debates on the merits of review bodies six, nine and 12 months ago. In November 1990, on the day of the first ballot result of the Conservative leadership contest, the present Secretary of State came to the House and recommended that the House approve the first School Teachers Pay and Conditions Bill, which proposed across-the-table negotiations. I am glad that the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is present, as he was in the House on that occasion when we were told that the new version of across-the-table negotiations was an almost perfect way of settling school teachers' pay and conditions.

On that occasion, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was not entertaining any other alternatives, including that of a pay review body. That idea from the Secretary of State disappeared into a large black hole. Some months later, in the middle of April 1991—I think it was 18 April—the Secretary of State came to the House and said that he had abandoned that idea, which he had recommended to the House only five months before, and proposed a pay review body for school teachers. There was considerable debate about that in Committee and in the Chamber. We made it clear at the time that we had no objection to pay review bodies per se. How could we, when we had happily endorsed the doctors and dentists and top salaries pay review bodies?

Mr. Fatchett

And nurses.

Mr. Straw

My hon. Friend—to whom I am ever grateful—says, "And nurses." He might also have reminded me of the armed forces—I know that that was on the tip of my hon. Friend's tongue. We had also suggested that there should be a pay review body for ambulance personnel, which the current Secretary of State for Education and Science—then Secretary of State for Health —had resisted.

The argument about a school teachers pay review body was then about the extent of potential control that the Treasury was seeking to exercise over the school teachers pay and conditions review body. Section 1 of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1991 provides for the Treasury to impose conditions not imposed on any other pay review body and allows for the establishment of the pay review body without discussion with, let alone the consent of, employers or formal consultation with associations representing staff. Neither of those considerations apply in respect of our proposition.

The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals both agree that there should be a review body. Obviously, that is a sensible way of proceeding. I think that the suggestion has the support of all Opposition Members and all Opposition parties, and of at least 56 Government Members. I hope that, in the light of that overwhelming support, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will say that the Government accept the Opposition's proposal and are happy to endorse it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth)

Pay levels and conditions for lecturers in higher education institutions are currently matters for negotiation between employers and staff, and it is quite proper that they should be so. It would greatly detract from the autonomy of those institutions were that responsibility to be handed over to an independent body.

The Labour party professes to be jealous and zealous on behalf of academic freedom. I do not accept that it can be consistent for the Labour party to claim to be the upholder of the right of higher education institutions to be autonomous managers of their own affairs while at the same time arguing in favour of responsibility for something so central to the management of those great institutions as pay determination to be taken to a central agency. Higher education institutions need to be able to manage their own affairs and arrange matters in the light of their particular needs and circumstances.

Mr. Straw

I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention so early in his speech.

The Minister has every reason to know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is, to a degree, jealous about issues of academic freedom, as is the Association of University Teachers. However, both organisations, particularly the CVCP, have called for a pay review body for academic staff. They do not believe that there is any remote threat to academic freedom posed by that.

Mr. Howarth

In holding these two attitudes, those two organisations seem to be guilty of inconsistency. It would be presumptuous of me to speculate what is going on in the minds of their members—minds of great distinction. It appears that the importance of institutional independence recedes a little into the background of the consciousness of some vice-chancellors when they contemplate the device of a pay review body, which they suppose might be the means to secure more money from the tax payer to pay their staff. I understand the temptation they feel, but I think that there are inconsistencies in their position.

The Government have set up pay review bodies for a comparatively small number of professions in the public sector because of their specific role in particular services. Many professions within the public sector do not have pay review bodies. There is no such body for the vast majority of civil servants or local government employees. Central Government and local government employees embrace among their numbers a range of professions including administrators, lawyers, architects, engineers and surveyors, to name but a few. They do not have pay review bodies.

The analogy with schoolteachers put forward by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not at all persuasive. Over the years, there have always been quite different arrangements for schoolteachers and university dons for settling pay. There are important differences between the employers. Local government employs the teachers, but is not involved in the employment of university academics. A locally managed or grant-maintained school is a different sort of employing body from a university.

Universities are large, diverse institutions with important managerial responsibilities for large budgets and various sources of income. There would seem to be no sense in managerial terms in imposing externally determined rigidities on their biggest single cost—salaries.

I emphasise that not having a review body is in no sense a slur on a particular group. The Government value immensely the efforts of staff in higher education institutions to sustain high-quality teaching and research, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of their institutions. We applaud the way in which they do so.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

My hon. Friend referred to the diverse funding of universities. Is he aware that, during the past five years, the university of Lancaster has increased its outside funding from £2 million to £8 million because of the excellence of its work? It has been rewarded in that it has received that 10.9 per cent. increase in research funding. That shows that good universities can do well out of the system.

Mr. Howarth

As so often, my hon. Friend makes a useful point. I endorse her praise of Lancaster university and of the way in which it has diversified its sources of funding. About 40 per cent. of the income of higher education institutions now derives from sources other than the taxpayer—a powerful reason why it would be quite wrong of central Government to establish a pay review body to determine pay in institutions that depend to only a limited extent on the resources provided by the taxpayer.

The Labour party appears to have taken up a rather curious variety of positions in review bodies.

Mr. Straw

No, just one.

8 pm

Mr. Howarth

Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of the range of the Labour party's inconsistencies. During the passage of the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, the Labour party demonstrated its opposition to the School Teachers Pay Review Body which we proposed and have created. Now that that body has been set up, the Labour party seems to think that it is rather a good idea that the arrangement which it criticised for school teachers should be extended to university lecturers. It is puzzling that the Labour party should be quite so confused once again. I suspect that the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) instruct their research assistants to ring round the trade unions to discover what they want. They exhibit an opportunistic set of inconsistent policies.

For instance, Labour tabled a new clause requiring the Further Education Funding Council to ensure that, in each FE institution in receipt of a grant from the council, appropriate machinery is established for the determination of staff pay. So Labour is against a review body for school-teachers and in favour of one for academics—and it wants a funding council to be responsible for pay and conditions in the furthur education sector. So the Labour party advanced three different solutions to try to appeal politically to three different groups. That is irrational and nonsensical.

Mr. Straw

I do not think it wise of the Under-Secretary to pursue the charge of inconsistency. He is a member of the ministerial team that has told us how wonderful pay review bodies are for teachers, yet despite the support of 56 of his hon. Friends for a pay review body for university teachers, he comes up with extraordinary excuses—I suspect that they were written for him by the Treasury —to explain why the idea should be resisted.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman has not followed my earlier arguments. Judgments on whether particular groups of public sector employees or of those paid exclusively from the public purse should have their pay settled by a pay review body are made case by case in the light of prevailing circumstances.

I illustrate the Labour party's woolly thinking in this area by noting that during the recent Committee stage of this Bill the hon. Members for Oxford, East and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) proposed a new clause that would have required my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure proper collective bargaining machinery in the further and higher education sectors. My right hon. and learned Friend would also have been required to ensure that new corporations established national negotiating machinery to determine salaries, wages, terms and conditions. So one day Labour Members want collective bargaining and national negotiating machinery; the next, they do a U-turn and want a review body. The Labour party does not know what it wants.

Government policy on lecturers' pay is that it should be sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate staff of the required quality. There is no evidence of general recruitment and retention difficulties. If problems occur in specific teaching disciplines, they can be targeted through the flexibility in the pay structure that we have been encouraging year by year.

As is well known, we are prepared to examine other proposals that are put to us by the CVCP or by the unions, but we have a disposition to look favourably on a rather more decentralised system, consistent with our encouragement of differentiation between the higher education institutions—each charting its own academic mission, which in turn should relate sensibly to the plurality of the sources of its funding.

University lecturers' pay has increased by more than 14 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Last year's settlement was good for academics. They received 5 per cent. from 1 April, a further 1.4 per cent. from 1 September and an additional 1 per cent. from 1 January 1992, to be used at local management discretion. This must be seen in the context of inflation at just over 4 per cent.

I am glad that our academics have received a real-terms increase in pay this year. We owe them much for all that they achieve, but it would not be sensible to establish a pay review body for them, and I ask the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Carr

I note the Minister's comments about the inconsistency of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Perhaps one of the reasons why it supports a pay review body so strongly is that it does not want to become embroiled in the annual round of shilly-shallying that may result from having to determine a string of local pay agreements. That support is shared by the Association of University Teachers and other organisations.

The Liberal Democrats have been consistent. We favour a pay review body. We supported the introduction of one for the schoolteachers: we would like one in further education and another to fix the salaries of academics in universities and polytechnics.

A pay review body would be independent and fair. Among the groups whose pay is determined by this method are the so-called top people, the doctors and dentists, the armed services and now schoolteachers. There appears to be wide support for determining public sector pay for key groups by that method.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

The hon. Gentleman has heard the Minister clearly say that 40 per cent. of universities' funding does not come from the state. The other three bodies that he has mentioned are entirely state funded—a wholly different kettle of fish.

Mr. Carr

I do not necessarily agree. There may be different sources of funding, but the people undertaking the work in the universities are employed by the universities. It makes sense to determine the pay of university teachers, especially those involved in research, in this way. They will have to compete against teachers and universities in other parts of the country. I do not accept that merely because some funding comes from elsewhere the pay cannot be determined by that method.

The Minister himself said that the universities, not contributors of their funds, will determine pay—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

The point is that the lively universities such as mine attract more funds and will be in a better position to pay their staff well. I see no earthly reason why universities such as Lancaster should have to subsidise other universities that do not get their act together. We attract research, we attract overseas students, and we do exceptionally well. We are going up the ladder; I do not see why we should be dragged down by other universities.

Mr. Carr

I entirely agree that Lancaster university is going up the ladder. I pay tribute to it, as I represent a Lancashire constituency myself. Nevertheless, the pay of university teachers will be determined not by those contributing their funds but, under the Minister's system, by the universities. Through the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, universities have strongly supported the concept of a pay review body.

In 1987, the Government recognised that the present system was not as effective as it should be. However, they have not presented any proposals to improve it. The Minister spoke about the salaries of university teachers. The present salary at the top of the lecturers' scale has 91 per cent. of the purchasing power that it had in 1971. Since 1979, university salaries, measured against the non-manual average earnings index, have fallen by 25 per cent. In 1979, a grade 7 civil servant earned the same salary as a non-clinical lecturer. Now, that same civil servant earns £4,000 a year more.

Those three factors show the need to look again at the pay of university academics, and it should be looked at by means of a system that is increasingly recognised as being independent and fair—a pay review body. In Committee, and in today's debate, the Minister advanced arguments against such a body. I urge him to listen to the non-political voices of people in higher education who are calling for such a system.

Mr. Straw

At least 56 Conservative Members have signed an early-day motion that unequivocally calls for a pay review body for university teachers. However, only four or five of those hon. Members are present in the Chamber.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

There are only three Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Straw

The hon. Lady is twittering, as she sometimes does, from a sedentary position. The Opposition are not divided on the matter. We all support the setting up of a pay review body, and my hon. Friends are happy to leave matters to those of us on the Front Bench. There is a raging argument among Conservatives, because 56 Conservative Members have broken ranks and refused to accept the arguments advanced by the Under-Secretary of State. They have added their names to a proposition that clearly calls for a pay review body.

An examination of the names of those 56 Members shows—surprise, surprise—that a whole string of them represent towns and cities with universities. I hope that I can remember the constituencies. The list contains the names of Conservative Members from Bristol. It contains the name of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) who no doubt has academic staff from the university of Lancaster and from the universities in Manchester and Liverpool in his constituency. The list contains the names of hon. Members from Leeds and West Yorkshire, and includes the name of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) who has in his constituency many university staff from the universities of Bradford and Leeds. The list has a surprising connection with Conservative marginals which could be affected by the student vote. [Interruption.] We shall have to send Hansard round.

I am sure that many of those Conservative Members who have signed the early-day motion feel threatened by the election and fear a loss of support from among academic staff. They will have told their local papers how they are standing up for university academic staff. They have said that they will take no nonsense from Ministers, but will fight hard for a pay review body. It does not take much to sign one's name on early-day motions. Hon. Members often sign them without realising what they are signing.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

Absolutely.

Mr. Bowis

rose—

8.15 pm

Mr. Straw

Whatever else I might say about the hon. Lady, I would never accuse her of that.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

rose—

Mr. Straw

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady, who always knows what she supports and above all what she is against. It is one thing to sign an early-day motion and another to speak or vote in support of it.

Mr. Bowis

The hon. Gentleman will not find my name on that early-day motion. He said that it was my motion in Committee which led to the setting up of the review body for teachers. There is a difference between institutions to which money other than taxpayers' money is committed and those which are funded by the taxpayer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with that. He also said that he had shadow Treasury approval for his commitments. I have a reasonably open mind on the subject and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us how much the review body and the research that will be needed to back it will cost. I think he also spoke about a commitment to bring polytechnic pay into line with university pay when they become part of the same sector. What will be the cost of that?

Mr. Straw

I shall deal with those questions and then give way to the hon. Member for Lancaster. I would not dare not to.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that his proposition partly provoked the Government into reconsidering the Bill about teachers' pay and conditions. To explain away the Government's inconsistency on pay review bodies, the Under-Secretary of State said that their setting up had to be judged case by case in the light of circumstances. I think that those were his exact words. In one sense, that statement is entirely fair and may explain the position of the Government and the Opposition. We do not say that there should be review bodies for every area of public sector employment: nobody proposes that.

The hon. Member for Battersea asked whether there could be review bodies for institutions which did not derive a significant proportion of their income from public funds. An increasing proportion of a university's income now comes from non public sector sources, and most of that income is used for research. It is not used for routine academic teaching, and certainly not for the teaching of undergraduates. We are considering the core teaching and publicly funded research activities of universities that are overwhelmingly publicly funded. I do not suggest for a moment that the review body should comment on the remuneration that a specific group of researchers should receive for work that they are carrying out on contract for an individual company or, say, a medical charity.

The 40 per cent. figure is slightly deceptive, in terms of the core activities of institutions. Every university contains a core of academic staff whose job is to teach undergraduates and postgraduates who are themselves, in the main, publicly funded. If they are "home" students, their tuition is paid for by public funds, and some of their research will also be financed in that way. I do not think that there is any distinction of principle between university academic staffs and schoolteachers—or, as I said earlier, doctors and dentists.

Some schools now raise some of the costs of teachers' salaries through raffles, appeals and the like: I can prove that by means of letters that I have received. It is at the margin, but it takes place. I do not place the same weight on that point as the Minister appears to do.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

A new point has arisen since I first tried to intervene. The point is not simply that 40 per cent. of funds are provided by bodies other than the Government; staff in universities are much more interchangeable. They may go into industry or the civil service, for instance: they move in and out of the academic world, while schoolteachers tend to stay in the teaching profession.

My original point—which I tried to raise some time ago —was this. Of course it is our duty to consider carefully all representations made by our constituents, but our overwhelming duty is to consider the long-term welfare of the institutions that we represent. It would be all too easy to say to students, "I will vote for you to have much larger grants," but that would mean fewer students, and it would also mean had luck for those who were already five years down the road. Such a move would be popular, and it might mean a few votes for the hon. Member concerned; but he would not deserve them.

The same applies to the university lecturers' review body. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has suggested, it is always easier to sign an early-day motion than to argue the case with, in this instance, a lot of very erudite lecturers, but I believe that this case should and can be argued. I believe that it would be entirely wrong to set up a university pay review body—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Briefly, please.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman

I will put it briefly. I do not believe in signing early-day motions: I believe in arguing the toss, and getting it right.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North)

Beat that.

Mr. Straw

I cannot. Long service on the Opposition Front Bench has taught me never to try to beat interventions by the hon. Member for Lancaster, but simply to duck.

I do not think that there is more transfer of academic staff in universities than there is in school teaching. A small number of staff move in and out of academic work a good deal, but beneath that is a core that scarcely moves at all. We shall simply have to disagree about whether a pay review body would he appropriate. I do not subscribe to every representation that is made to me, and I hope that few other hon. Members do; each of us must weigh up the merits of the case that is advanced, and then make a judgment.

The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) asked what we expected our commitment to a pay review body to cost. First, there is the cost of the additional research that would, I assume, be carried out by the Office of Manpower Economics: I would expect that to be in six figures rather than seven—possibly in five. Such a commitment is marginal, even according to the fantastic imagination of Conservative central office.

Then there is the potential cost of the review body. We have made no commitment in regard to additional resources for university academic staff, simply because of the existence of a pay review body. We are talking about the machinery for settling pay, not about pay levels themselves. I have read out a list of the conditions under which a future Government would consider the recommendations of a pay review body for university teachers, which would be the same as for the review bodies established for doctors, dentists and so forth. According to wording that has applied to successive Governments of different political colours, a Government would be ready to accept the recommendations of a pay review body unless there were "clear and compelling" reasons to the contrary.

Mr. Bowis

What about the polytechnics?

Mr. Straw

I dealt with the polytechnics in my opening remarks. We are still consulting, but, as the polytechnics are to become part of the university sector, I assume that, once the transition had been completed, the same arrangements would apply to them. as to other university staffs.

Mr. Bowis

What about the cost?

Mr. Straw

The same applies to that.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. His arguments were flimsy in the extreme. The flimsiest was his suggestion that academic freedom would be threatened by the establishment of a pay review body. I fancy that that suggestion will produce guffaws, not to say hysteria, in the offices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in Tavistock square. For a Higher Education Minister in the current Administration to pray in aid academic freedom in defence of the line that he is taking is most unusual.

I am glad to see that even the Minister can see the joke. It was a good try on the part of his officials to make bricks without straw, to coin a phrase, but I am not sure that it succeeded. [Interruption.] I should not have said that. It was a grave error to make a pun on my own name.

The case for a university pay review body is overwhelming, and it enjoys the support' of the 56 Conservative Members who signed that early-day motion. We shall, of course, consult each of the signatories to find out whether he is about to stand on his head and vote the proposal down. The new clause, however, would ensure that university teachers' pay was settled sensibly, without any recourse to industrial action, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 265.

Division No. 104]	[8.26 pm
AYES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)	Griffiths. Win (Bridgend)
Alton, David	Grocott, Bruce
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Hain, Peter
Armstrong, Hilary	Hardy, Peter
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Haynes, Frank
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Ashton, Joe	Henderson, Doug
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hinchliffe, David
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)	Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Barron, Kevin	Home Robertson, John
Beckett, Margaret	Hood, Jimmy
Beggs, Roy	Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Bell, Stuart	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Bellotti, David	Howells, Geraint
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)	Hoyle, Doug
Benton, Joseph	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Bermingham, Gerald	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Blunkett, David	Illsley, Eric
Boyes, Roland	Ingram. Adam
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)	Janner, Greville
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)	Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Caborn, Richard	Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Callaghan, Jim	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Kennedy, Charles
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)	Kilfoyle, Peter
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Kirkwood, Archy
Canavan, Dennis	Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)	Lambie, David
Carr, Michael	Leadbitter, Ted
Cartwright, John	Leighton, Ron
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)	Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Clelland, David	Lewis, Terry
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Litherland, Robert
Cohen, Harry	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Corbett, Robin	Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Corbyn, Jeremy	Loyden, Eddie
Cousins, Jim	McAllion. John
Crowther, Stan	McCartney, Ian
Cryer, Bob	Macdonald, Calum A.
Cummings, John	McFall, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence	McKelvey, William
Dalyell, Tam	McLeish, Henry
Darling, Alistair	Maclennan, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)	McMaster, Gordon
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)	McNamara, Kevin
Dewar, Donald	McWilliam, John
Dixon, Don	Madden, Max
Dobson, Frank	Mahon, Mrs Alice
Doran, Frank	Marek, Dr John
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Dunnachie, Jimmy	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth	Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Eadie, Alexander	Martlew, Eric
Eastham, Ken	Meacher, Michael
Enright, Derek	Meale, Alan
Evans, John (St Helens N)	Michael, Alun
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Fatchett, Derek	Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)
Faulds, Andrew	Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Fearn, Ronald	Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Flannery, Martin	Morley, Elliot
Flynn, Paul	Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foster, Derek	Mowlam, Marjorie
Foulkes, George	Mullin, Chris
Fraser, John	O'Brien, William
Fyfe, Maria	O'Hara, Edward
Garrett, John (Norwich South)	O'Neill, Martin
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Godman, Dr Norman A.	Paisley, Rev Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin	Parry, Robert
Gordon, Mildred	Patchett, Terry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Pendry, Tom
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Prescott, John	Steinberg, Gerry
Primarolo, Dawn	Stephen, Nicol
Quin, Ms Joyce	Stott, Roger
Radice, Giles	Straw, Jack
Randall, Stuart	Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Redmond, Martin	Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn	Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Reid, Dr John	Trimble, David
Robinson, Geoffrey	Turner, Dennis
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)	Wallace, James
Rogers, Allan	Wareing, Robert N.
Rooker, Jeff	Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
Rooney, Terence	Wigley, Dafydd
Rowlands, Ted	Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Ruddock, Joan	Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Sedgemore, Brian	Wilson, Brian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert	Winnick, David
Shore, Rt Hon Peter	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Short, Clare	Worthington, Tony
Skinner, Dennis	Wray, Jimmy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Snape, Peter	Tellers for the Ayes:
Soley, Clive	Mr. Thomas McAvoy and
Spearing, Nigel	Mr. Allen McKay.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Alexander, Richard	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Cormack, Patrick
Allason, Rupert	Couchman, James
Amess, David	Cran, James
Amos, Alan	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Arbuthnot, James	Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Day, Stephen
Arnold, Sir Thomas	Dickens, Geoffrey
Ashby, David	Dicks, Terry
Aspinwall, Jack	Dorrell, Stephen
Atkins, Robert	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Atkinson, David	Dover, Den
Baldry, Tony	Dunn, Bob
Batiste, Spencer	Durant, Sir Anthony
Bellingham, Henry	Dykes, Hugh
Bendall, Vivian	Eggar, Tim
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Benyon, W.	Evennett, David
Bevan, David Gilroy	Fallon, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.	Farr, Sir John
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Body, Sir Richard	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Fookes, Dame Janet
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Forman, Nigel
Boswell, Tim	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)	Forth, Eric
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Bowis, John	Fox, Sir Marcus
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes	Franks, Cecil
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard	French, Douglas
Brazier, Julian	Gale, Roger
Bright, Graham	Gardiner, Sir George
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)	Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Browne, John (Winchester)	Gill, Christopher
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)	Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Burns, Simon	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Butler, Chris	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Butterfill, John	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Carrington, Matthew	Gorst, John
Carttiss, Michael	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Cash, William	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda	Ground, Patrick
Chapman, Sydney	Hague, William
Chope, Christopher	Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Churchill, Mr	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William	Harris, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Haselhurst, Alan
Colvin, Michael	Hawkins, Christopher
Conway, Derek	Hayes, Jerry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)	Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Hayward, Robert	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Norris, Steve
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)	Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)	Page, Richard
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.	Paice, James
Hill, James	Patnick, Irvine
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)	Patten, Rt Hon John
Hordern, Sir Peter	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Pawsey, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Portillo, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Powell, William (Corby)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)	Price, Sir David
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)	Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Rathbone, Tim
Hunter, Andrew	Redwood, John
Irvine, Michael	Riddick, Graham
Irving, Sir Charles	Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Jack, Michael	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Jackson, Robert	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Janman, Tim	Roe, Mrs Marion
Jessel, Toby	Rossi, Sir Hugh
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Rost, Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Rowe, Andrew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)	Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Sayeed, Jonathan
Key, Robert	Shaw, David (Dover)
Kilfedder, James	Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)	Shelton, Sir William
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)	Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Kirkhope, Timothy	Shersby, Michael
Knapman, Roger	Sims, Roger
Knowles, Michael	Skeet, Sir Trevor
Knox, David	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Soames, Hon Nicholas
Latham, Michael	Speller, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan	Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Lee, John (Pendle)	Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Squire, Robin
Lightbown, David	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Steen, Anthony
Lord, Michael	Stern, Michael
Macfarlane, Sir Neil	Stevens, Lewis
MacGregor, Rt Hon John	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)	Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
McLoughlin, Patrick	Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael	Summerson, Hugo
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mans, Keith	Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Maples, John	Taylor, Sir Teddy
Marlow, Tony	Temple-Morris, Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)	Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)	Thorne, Neil
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)	Thurnham, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis	Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Tracey, Richard
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick	Tredinnick, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David	Trippier, David
Miller, Sir Hal	Twinn, Dr Ian
Mills, Iain	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Mitchell, Sir David	Waller, Gary
Moate, Roger	Walters, Sir Dennis
Monro, Sir Hector	Ward, John
Montgomery, Sir Fergus	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Moore, Rt Hon John	Watts, John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)	Wells, Bowen
Morrison, Sir Charles	Wheeler, Sir John
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Whitney, Ray
Moss, Malcolm	Widdecombe, Ann
Neale, Sir Gerrard	Wilkinson, John
Nelson, Anthony	Wilshire, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony	Winterton, Nicholas
Nicholls, Patrick	Wolfson, Mark
Nicholson, David (Taunton)	Wood, Timothy

Woodcock, Dr. Mike	Tellers for the Noes:
Young, Sir George (Acton)	Mr. Tom Sackville and
Younger, Rt Hon George	Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.