Education (Hansard, 16 January 2001)

§ Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough)
I beg to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) (No. 4) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 3106), dated 21st November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. As hon. Members who raised points of order made clear, this is a very important issue indeed. It is sad that we are starting to debate such an important issue at twenty minutes past 11 o'clock because we have spent most of the evening waffling about parliamentary business that could have been carried very quickly. If it had been, that would have enabled us to hold a full one and a half hour debate on this issue.

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

§ Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
It is very sad indeed—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal)
Order. The House must come to order.

§ Mr. Willis
Performance-related pay is an important issue, which for the last two years has vexed the minds of some 500,000 teachers throughout England and Wales. When they look at the newspapers tomorrow, or at Hansard, and see that, sadly, Members felt it was far more important to play games on the Opposition Benches than to discuss this important issue, they will draw their own conclusion about who has teachers' interests at heart.
We have never had an opportunity in the House to discuss performance-related pay, or indeed the Government's Green Paper, published in December 1998, entitled "Teachers: Meeting the Challenge of Change". That Green Paper contained a series of interesting proposals about the future of the teaching profession—proposals that Members on both sides of the House would have enjoyed debating. There was an important proposal to introduce information and communications technology and to make every teacher in the country ICT-literate. Another proposal was to introduce teaching assistants, who have a crucial role in the education delivery service. The changes to initial teacher training were trailed in that document. It had some profound things to say about the way in which the profession would be organised in this new millennium. Perhaps the most interesting issue, to which the Government have come rather late, is that of professional development of the teaching force. Those were all major issues.

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
Given the time that is available to me, I am not prepared to give way. I apologise for that.
Sadly, two years on, the Green Paper, despite the fact that it has not been debated in the House, will be remembered not for the many excellent initiatives that it 316 contains, but for the Government's bungled attempts to impose performance-related pay on the teaching profession in England and Wales.

§ Miss McIntosh
Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

§ Mr. Willis
The order that we are considering tonight is the culmination of that bungled and torturous process. Rather than unite the teaching profession around new structures for pay and conditions, the Secretary of State has shown us how it is possible to divide the profession and squander the good will of 500,000 teachers.

§ Miss McIntosh
Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?

§ Mr. Willis
In his judgment in the successful court case brought by the National Union of Teachers, Mr. Justice Jackson said that the course adopted by the Secretary of State had bypassed the School Teachers Review Body, Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. He said that if he did not make an order, the court would be allowing contractual provisions to be foisted upon some 400,000 schoolteachers in a manner not authorised by Parliament. That judgment on 14 July last year was a shocking indictment of the way in which the Secretary of State had tried to force through his proposals without debate or proper consideration.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to give way.

§ Mr. Willis
Imagine if a Conservative Secretary of State had been so judged in the courts—there would have been outrage among Labour Members.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
There frequently was.

§ Mr. Willis
The right hon. Gentleman says that there was, frequently.

§ Mr. Forth
I was there.

§ Mr. Willis
Labour Members must recognise that it was a judgment of real significance in terms of the process.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
Yet even with that judgment ringing in the Secretary of State's ears, he sought to deflect the blame, first by blaming the NUT and then his civil servants for the decisions that were taken. Never did the right hon. Gentleman say after that damning court judgment, "I got it wrong and I apologise to the teaching profession."

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
What nonsense.
317 In the Department's submission to the court, its timetable for the validation of all assessments was not September 1990 or October, but 28 February 2001. That was the date on which the Government expected the threshold payments to be made available to teachers.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
There was never any intention of paying teachers earlier than that. The Minister and the Secretary of State castigated the NUT, saying that teachers were prevented from having their payments in September. That was untrue and a dreadful statement for a Secretary of State to make.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
There was never a threat that the threshold process—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not intend to give way. That is entirely at his discretion.

§ Mr. Forth
Disgraceful.

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
So is the behaviour in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Willis
There was never a threat, despite the protestations of the Minister in a Standing Committee, that the entire process would have to be started again. That was never in question. What was at stake was not the threshold criteria per se—

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
The real debate was whether there had been proper consultation on the new arrangements that the Secretary of State was bringing in.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Willis
The key issue goes to the heart of the debate, and it is the principle—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I ask hon. Members to come to order.

§ Mr. Willis
The key issue that is at the heart of performance-related pay, the NUT's court judgment and the motion is that even a benign Secretary of State must be subject to the law as it stands. If we surrender that principle and accept that a Secretary of State is beyond the law and can impose on teachers any conditions that he may wish, we are absolutely lost. That was the principle at the heart of the court's decision.
Following the decision, the Secretary of State and Department for Education and Employment officials have consulted the professional associations. Positive dialogue has taken place between the Department for Education and Employment and teachers' unions—
318 It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, being of the opinion that, owing to the lateness of the hour at which consideration of the motion was entered upon, the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the Business, and the debate stood adjourned till tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17(2)(Delegated legislation (negative procedure)).