School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill

HL Deb 15 July 1991 vol 531 cc13-52

3.13 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Establishment of review body to consider statutory conditions of employment of school teachers]:

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 13, at end insert: ("(2A) From the relevant date in considering the statutory conditions of employment of teachers of pupils in sixth forms, the review body shall have regard to the prevailing conditions of employment (including remuneration) of persons occupying teaching posts in sixth form colleges carrying out the same or similar duties in respect of the teaching of sixth formers. (2B) For the purpose of subsection (2A) above, the Principal of the sixth form college shall after the relevant date notify the review body of the conditions of employment (including remuneration) in that academic year of persons occupying teaching posts in the college, together with such other relevant information and by such date as the review body may determine. (2C) For the purpose of subsection (2A) above, the relevant date shall be the date (if any) determined by the Secretary of State under separate provisions from which persons employed in teaching posts and sixth form colleges shall cease to be defined as school teachers.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Committee stage we discussed the position of teachers in sixth form colleges and the strange situation in which they will find themselves when the new arrangements come into force. In particular, the point was made that teachers in sixth form colleges will be paid on a different scale from those doing identical work in sixth forms in schools.

At col. 1129 of the Official Report of 4th July the Minister said: The aim is to bring coherence to an area of education vital for the future both of the nation and of the students themselves". It does not seem to us that the arrangements are coherent if teachers doing the same work are to be paid on different scales and to have different conditions of work.

The original amendment, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, at Committee stage, aimed to ensure that after the control of sixth form colleges was transferred in April 1993 from the LEAs to the new councils the pay and conditions of those teaching in sixth form colleges would continue to be determined by the pay review body. That amendment was defeated on a vote. We are now adopting a slightly different approach.

The purpose of the amendment which I am now moving is to ensure that the review body considers the pay and other conditions of service of teachers in sixth form colleges when making its recommendations on the pay and other conditions of employment of teachers in sixth forms once legislation is introduced to separate sixth form colleges from LEAs.

The Government's decision to remove the further education sector from LEAs and to include sixth form colleges in that change means that from April 1993 teachers in sixth form colleges will no longer be covered by the review body. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said: the Government firmly believe that sixth form colleges have more in common with FE colleges than they do with the schools sector".—[Official Report, 4/7/89; cols. 1129–1130].

That is clearly not the case. The work carried out by teachers in sixth form colleges is much closer to the work carried out by teachers in sixth forms than that of lecturers in further education colleges. Teachers in both sixth forms and sixth form colleges teach primarily GCE A-levels covering recognised subject areas. Lecturers in further education colleges are involved in a very different range of work, including BTEC and vocational courses.

At present all teachers in sixth form colleges are school teachers and therefore qualified as such, unlike further education lecturers who are not required to possess the same qualifications. Therefore, since the work is similar and the qualifications are the same, the same kinds of applicants are attracted to jobs in each sector. Those who are qualified to teach in sixth form colleges are also qualified to teach in schools, and vice versa.

Once the sixth form colleges are separated from LEAs responsibility for determining their pay will rest with the individual governing body. The danger is that conditions of employment, including pay, of teachers in sixth form colleges could become very different from those in sixth forms in schools. That could well result in teacher shortages in one sector or another. It is, therefore, important that the review body, in considering its recommendations for the pay of teachers in the schools sector who teach sixth formers for part or all of their time, should take into account the pay and conditions of service of teachers in sixth form colleges.

As I said in Committee, I am a governor of a sixth form college. There is a good deal of anxiety and uncertainty about what the teachers' position will be. It has not yet been made clear what teachers' pay and conditions will be. They are anxious about that and I believe that clarification is required. I hope that the approach set out in the amendment will be acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, in opposing the amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, I moved in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, said that in the Government's view the pay and employment conditions of teachers in both sixth form colleges and colleges of further education should in future be settled by negotiation between employer and employee. He acknowledged that much of the work done by teachers in sixth form colleges was the same as the work of teachers in sixth forms in schools. However, he also claimed that in large measure teachers in the two sectors did different work.

The amendment has been drafted with the Government's view in mind. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has explained its terms and I do not need to cover that ground again. It will be plain to your Lordships from what the noble Baroness said that we continue to feel that, in terms of the work the teachers do and the qualifications that are needed to do it, teachers in sixth form colleges have more in common with sixth form teachers in schools than with teachers in further education colleges.

It follows that in considering the remuneration and other statutory conditions of employment that should apply to sixth form teachers in schools, the review body should have regard, as the amendment suggests, to the pay and employment conditions of teachers in sixth form colleges. If that is not done, conditions of service in the two sectors might come to differ significantly. Sixth form colleges now recruit staff mainly from the secondary school sector. Differing employment conditions would necessarily impose constraints on the movement of staff between the centres and recruitment might well become difficult for the sector that is perceived to have the less advantageous conditions.

At present where I live in Cheshire there is healthy movement of teaching staff between those in schools for 11 to 16 year-olds, 11 to 18 year-olds and those in sixth form colleges. That is particularly valuable in ensuring that sixth form college teachers have experience of the national curriculum and of work for the GCSE exam. Acceptance of the amendment would help to ensure that that freedom of movement was not impaired. For those reasons I am glad to support the amendment.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, there is another aspect of the matter which might not be covered by the amendment but must be considered. In the Catholic sector in London—I cannot speak for the others—the sixth form college has taken the place of the sixth form in secondary schools with the result that teachers in secondary schools have had their work downgraded. If I know the system, because they are not teaching sixth form subjects their pay will probably be downgraded. The teachers who have been left behind as a result of the creation of the sixth form colleges will therefore be at risk. Westminster—my un-favourite borough—has made all heads of department redundant following the creation of sixth form colleges, but the real reason for those teachers being made redundant is that they were the highest paid. The council says that it still needs teachers, but it wants cheap teachers—those who come straight from college.

All those factors must be taken into account when we consider teachers' pay. It must be protected as never before, particularly under the system with which the Government have now landed us. I am sorry to say that, so far as I understand it, the creation of sixth form colleges—I do not know whose bright idea they were—has merely complicated matters in London.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, will the Minister clarify a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady David? Is it not the case, as I think the noble Baroness said, that the people in the sixth form colleges will be teaching for exactly the same examinations as the people in the sixth forms? Presumably, if they are preparing students or pupils, or whatever one must call them, for exactly the same exams, and they are doing the job properly, they will be doing the same job. If that is so, how can we justify paying them differently?

Lord Renton

My Lords, the difficulty that I find with the amendment is that it does not appear to fit in with the scheme and purpose of the Bill which is to establish a review body to consider statutory conditions of employment of school teachers. It will have a general remit relating to the whole of the teaching profession, including the teachers of children at schools of various kinds. At the time of each review, the review body will consider the latest information available to it. It therefore seems unnecessary to do as the amendment proposes and to introduce a rather elaborate set of provisions fixing a relevant date, stating that the review body must be bound by things as they are at that date and enabling the Secretary of State to say what the date shall be. Therefore, on the matter of timing, I should have thought that the amendment was strictly speaking unnecessary and I cannot see the advantage of it.

However, new subsection (2B) states that: the Principal of the sixth form college shall after the relevant date notify the review body of the conditions of employment". When the review body is to have a general remit I wonder what is the purpose of referring to the principal of the sixth form college? To which sixth form college does the amendment refer? There will be a number of them. I shall listen, as will all noble Lords, to what my noble friend on the Front Bench says about the amendment, but at the moment I cannot see how it will fit into the scheme of the Bill.

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, I, too, should like to seek clarification on one point. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady David, said that the work of sixth form colleges was much closer to that of normal sixth forms than to the work of FE. However, at the sixth form college at which I was once a governor the tendency was to move towards a broader mix of A level and BTEC subjects which was found to be much more attractive to the local youth of the region and gave rise to much higher staying-on rates to 17 and even 18. The Government wish to give a further impetus towards a lowering of barriers between school subjects and FE subjects. My worry about the amendment is that it might imperil that mix by imposing a rigid scale of remuneration which would make matters more difficult. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister shares that worry with me.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, expressed anxiety in Committee about the position of teachers in sixth form colleges and moved an amendment designed to ensure that such staff would remain within the ambit of the review body after their institution joined the FE sector. This amendment would not give the review body responsibility for making recommendations on the pay and conditions of sixth form college teachers, but it would require the review body to have regard to changes in the conditions of employment of teaching staff in sixth form colleges when recommending changes in the statutory conditions of employment of teachers who teach pupils in secondary school sixth forms.

I do not find the arguments that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have advanced very persuasive. I accept that there is room for a genuine disagreement about whether sixth form colleges should remain part of the schools sector, or whether they and their students would be better served as part of the new, unified FE sector. The Government firmly believe that sixth form colleges have more in common with FE colleges and should enjoy the same freedoms. Others may disagree, but, as the White Paper Education and Training. for the Twenty-First Century makes clear, this is the Government's position.

As I explained in Committee, staff in sixth form colleges will initially be transferred to the employment of the institution in the new sector on their existing pay and conditions. Thereafter, it will be for the staff themselves and their employers to decide on changes in pay and conditions. The noble Lord's amendment is, I think, based on the premise that because A levels will continue to be taught in both schools and sixth form colleges some kind of read-across should be established, so far as these teaching staff are concerned, between the two sectors. The proposed solution in the amendment is to require all 120 or so sixth form colleges to tell the review body what changes have been made to the pay and conditions of their staff, and for the review body to have to take that into account when making recommendations on school teachers.

I do not see the logic in that, nor how the arrangements would work in practice. A levels are already taught in FE colleges, yet there has not been any suggestion that the staff concerned should be other than on FE pay and conditions. The case for requiring a link between a particular category of employees in the FE sector and some, though not all, teachers in schools rests on comparisons between the duties and responsibilities of the staff concerned. But there are important differences between the two groups of teachers.

I address that remark in reply to a number of noble Lords who raised this issue during the debate today. A person referred to in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, as a "sixth form teacher" is likely to be someone who spends about 80 per cent. of his or her time teaching children below the age of 16 in an institution which is primarily responsible for the education of pupils of statutory age. I hope that answers the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. These distinctions are enormous. Teachers in sixth form colleges, like teachers in FE colleges, teach only students over that age. The institutions are organised very differently as a result. That seems to me to be a crucial distinction and one reason why the institutions and their staff should be part of the new FE sector.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord who is spokesman for the Government. The point I made in Committee was that the work undertaken by schoolteachers in sixth forms was virtually identical to that undertaken by full-time teachers in sixth form colleges. Of course, I am perfectly aware that they may spend up to 80 per cent. of their time teaching young pupils, but the real point is that their sixth form work differs very little from that going on in sixth form colleges.

Perhaps the Minister could address the problem faced by the Government. Does he consider that it will be acceptable for teachers in sixth form colleges who are doing the same work as teachers in schools, in so far as they are involved in sixth forms, to be paid quite different salaries under quite different conditions'? My view is that it will cause us considerable difficulties in the teaching profession in regard to both recruitment and retention.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. I acknowledge that the work in sixth forms in both sectors is the same. I have drawn attention to the vast differences outside. I do not say that that fact precludes some kind of harmonisation between people doing similar work in different areas. But we are coming to the point of not agreeing on what the Government consider to be a very considerable difference between a teacher who is teaching in a sixth form college and a teacher who is teaching a sixth form in a school.

The problem of recruitment has been raised. I believe it will be for the review body to consider the recruitment needs of all secondary schools, including those with sixth forms. In the new FE sector it will be for the employers to take the necessary action to recruit and retain. The needs of the two sectors may well be different. It will be for those concerned to respond as they think best. I believe it does not help to require some kind of read-across between the two sectors.

The review body will be able to take into account any evidence it wishes and draw upon such information as it thinks fit in making recommendations on school teachers' pay and conditions. I have argued that there is a very real distinction between school teachers and those who will be employed in the new FE sector. On the other hand, it would be impossible—or very nearly so—for the review body to distinguish between teachers in secondary schools with some sixth form responsibilities and those with none. Even if they were able to do so, I cannot think it desirable that they should be asked to make different recommendations for different groups of secondary school staff who may be teaching in the same school and whose timetables can, and do, vary from year to year. One of the most important achievements of recent years has been the creation of a simple, unified structure of pay and conditions for all school teachers. I cannot think that the review body will want to turn the clock back.

I believe this amendment to be misdirected and, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, fundamentally unworkable. For the reasons I have given, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Baroness David

My Lords, we do not seem to have a meeting of minds on this matter. Clearly, there is an anomaly here which in my view has not been sufficiently recognised by the Government. There is a real danger that if pay and conditions between two sets of teachers who are doing the same work are different there will be a difficulty about recruitment. If conditions are very much better in sixth form colleges when teachers are working under their own college arrangements it is likely that teachers of sixth forms in schools will gradually drift across. In many ways, I think it would have been very much better had the Government taken the bull by the horns and got rid of the sixth forms in schools, putting all 16 to 19-year-olds into one sector. That would have been the sensible and logical thing to do. However, the Government have not chosen to do that and have therefore left themselves in a muddle. Since we are not going to agree upon the matter, I think we should test the opinion of the House.

3.36 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Ardwick, L.	Lockwood, B.
Blackstone, B.	Longford, E.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Bottomley, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Briginshaw, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Milverton, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mishcon, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Molloy, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Nicol, B.
David, B.	Northfield, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Ogmore, L.
Desai, L.	Peston, L.
Ennals, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Rea, L.
Ezra, L.	Redesdale, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Richard, L.
Foot, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Gallacher, L.	Rochester, L. [Teller.]
Galpern, L.	Seear, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Shackleton, L.
	Shepherd, L.
Gregson, L.	Stallard, L.
Hampton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L
Hanworth, V.	Strabolgi, L.
Hayter, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Tonypandy, V.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
John-Mackie, L.	Underhill, L.
Kearton, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kilbracken, L.	White, B.
Leatherland, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailesbury, M.	Cottesloe, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Craigavon, V.
Ampthill, L.	Craigmyle, L.
Astor, V.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Auckland, L.	Cumberlege, B.
Aylestone, L.	Davidson, V. [Teller.]
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	De Freyne, L.
Belstead, L.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Blatch, B.	Effingham, E.
Blyth, L.	Elibank, L.
Boardman, L.	Elles, B.
Borthwick, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Elton, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Faithfull, B.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Ferrers, E.
Butterworth, L.	Flather, B.
Caithness, E.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Gainford, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Gray of Contin, L.
Carnock, L.	Gridley, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Clanwilliam, E.
Cockfield, L.	Halsbury, E.
Coleraine, L.	Harmsworth, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Havers, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Henley, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Hood, V.	Orkney, E.
Hooper, B.	Oxfuird, V.
Howe, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Pender, L.
Ironside, L.	Plumb, L.
Jeffreys, L.	Porritt, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Joseph, L.	Renton, L.
Killearn, L.	Renwick, L.
Kilmarnock, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Saint Oswald, L.
Kinnaird, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Knollys, V.	Sharples, B.
Lauderdale, E.	Shaughnessy, L.
Long, V.	Stedman, B.
Lyell, L.	Strange, B.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Macleod of Borve, B.	Strathspey, L.
Manton, L.	Sudeley, L.
Mar, C.	Tenby, V.
Margadale, L.	Terrington, L.
Marlesford, L.	Teviot, L.
Merrivale, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Mersey, V.	Thorneycroft, L.
Middleton, L.	Thurlow, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Trumpington, B.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Morris, L.	Waddington, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Munster, E.	Wedgwood, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Westbury, L.
Nelson, E.	Wise, L.
Norrie, L.	Wynford, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to according.

3.44 p.m.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 18, after ("considerations") insert ("including, subject to subsection (4A) and section 2(1A) below, financial considerations").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8. They are related. The first question to which we must address ourselves is the meaning of the word "considerations" as set out in the Bill. I must confess that only as the Bill progressed did I fully begin to understand—or look into and try to understand—what might be meant here by "considerations".

First and foremost, the Bill must be regarded as simply derivative from a general objective; namely, the education of pupils at school. Therefore, the main purpose of any provision under the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill is that it must be judged according to its likely effect on education. Therefore I assume that the considerations which the Secretary of State will draw to the attention of the review body will include matters of a purely educational nature.

But beyond that there will be specific matters to do with teachers. Obviously—I shall not deal with the point in detail now because it comes under Amendment No. 3—the question of teacher scarcity and so on will be relevant considerations. Other considerations that come to mind relate to teachers receiving additional training and bringing themselves up to date and so forth. When listening to the debate on the first amendment, it occurred to me on reflection that perhaps one answer which the Government might have given but did not give was that the Secretary of State, when setting the pay of teachers in sixth forms, would include in the considerations the need to take into account what is happening in sixth form colleges and further education. That is quite a good consideration, and I am surprised that the Minister's brief did not include it in his answer.

Considerations can cover a lot of useful items. As an economist I feel that the most obvious one to come into the list would be financial considerations. Earlier, when we debated finance we argued that it should not be set down as a constraint. It seems to me more reasonable—I strongly believe this—that the review body should take into account financial considerations and that the Secretary of State should guide it in that regard. Therefore I view the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself as coming well within the spirit of the Bill. They are meant to be helpful and sensible and to lead to a rational outcome of the review body's deliberations.

In that connection, another point which has not been given enough weight in our discussions of the matter is that those who are affected by the review body must have confidence in it. In other words, however we argue about the details, if in the end there is a review body, it must be a body which teachers feel will give them a proper, reasonable and fair deal when it comes to pay and conditions. It would be hopeless, after having gone through so much discussion, if we end up with provisions which teachers themselves feel on a year-on-year basis constantly betray them. In other words, the considerations must be such as to give confidence to teachers.

While the considerations of a financial nature that the Secretary of State will bring to bear should give teachers confidence, I hasten to add—for all sorts of reasons, not least because of my own profession—that taxpayers must also have confidence in the deliberations of that body. They must believe that while, on the one hand, such a body takes into account the need for our schools to have sufficient numbers of teachers of quality, at the other extreme taxpayers' money must not be wasted. Financial considerations must be brought to bear so that the money is sufficient but not excessive. Financial considerations are important. It will be enormously helpful if the Secretary of State indicates the financial considerations that he has in mind and their statistical and economic underpinning.

Finally, we need a commitment from the Secretary of State which will help to give the confidence that the review body should achieve. The Secretary of State having placed various financial considerations before the review body, and the review body having taken them properly into account—in other words, it has not in any meaningful sense departed from them—there ought to be some definite presumption that the Secretary of State will not arbitrarily change his mind and reject the review body's recommendations. I emphasise the word arbitrarily because, wearing my economist's hat, I understand that having placed financial considerations before the review body the economy could be hit by some adverse shock. The Secretary of State might have to say, "Although broadly speaking we believed that this was the sum of money you ought to be considering, the economy has deteriorated". In other words, I do not say that the decision should be automatic. I say that at all times the Secretary of State's response should be reasoned and based on evidence. That is the nature of the amendments.

I anticipate one possible answer; namely, that the Secretary of State's response will be so anyway. The Government always play that answer when they wish to agree with some issue for which they do not want to make provision. Placing such a provision on the face of the Bill has one specific, good consequence; namely, it gives the people affected confidence in what has occurred. The result is a specific provision on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Peston, moved a probing amendment aimed at establishing the Government's intention on the financial side. In supporting that amendment, I stated that its terms accorded with the undertaking that the Government had earlier given: that the review body would not be bound by any financial constraints. We wished that undertaking to be included on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, considered that there was no need for such an amendment because under the Bill the review body could simply ignore any attempt by the Secretary of State to constrain it in that way. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, moved today takes the matter a stage further. He explained its purpose; I shall not do so again.

The Government may claim that when the Secretary of State gives any direction to the review body as to financial considerations, there is no need for him to justify such a direction by reference to economic criteria, as the amendment proposes, because the Office of Manpower Economics can supply the review body with relevant statistical data and any advice that it needs on the economic effects of such a direction. I hope that that will not be the Government's response. I believe that the Secretary of State should be prepared to justify on economic grounds any direction he may give to the review body concerning financial considerations. I support all that the noble Lord said.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend Lord Cavendish said in Committee: that an amendment on these lines is not necessary. However, the amendment before us—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not mind my saying this—is one which may lead to controversy and indeed uncertainty. If we were to have anything written into the Bill about financial considerations, I should have thought that it would be undesirable to refer to economic criteria. Every good schoolboy knows, and every good schoolgirl knows better, that every department of state has to go along with the Treasury in financial matters so that the country does not become bankrupt. Therefore any provisions with regard to financial considerations would be of the simplest kind.

However, to say that economic criteria should be brought in is an invitation to controversy and uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, once disagreed with me when I ventured to describe economics as an inexact science. He could not understand why I said that. I am only a rusty old lawyer. I am not an economist. But if we were to go into the various economic criteria which change every week, and which affect the attitude of the Treasury from time to time, then there could he no end to the arguments into which the Secretary of State and the review body could be plunged. I suggest that their minds could be diverted from the real issues: to secure a good teaching profession which is well paid according to the needs of the rising generation. But to have controversy thrown in regarding the issues that affect the national economy would be wrong.

Lord Desai

My Lords, I beg to differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. There are financial considerations and economic criteria. It is important to note that not only recently but for a long time we have run the education system on short-term narrow financial criteria rather than on longer-term good economic criteria. It is recognised on all sides—the Prime Minister recognises this—that education is an important but sorely neglected area which is vital for our economic betterment.

Economic criteria do not necessarily change from day to day. It is important that we do not have a shortage of teachers and that our teachers should perform to the best of their ability in order to build up the human capital of this country for the future.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

My Lords, I speak from experience on an advisory committee rather than a review body. However, I believe that there are many factors in common. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the confidence of teachers is critical to the success of the body. That was a factor at which we always aimed.

I make the assumption that a review body is a step forward and therefore that anything that an advisory committee was doing would be better undertaken by a review body. I am surprised, for example, that we ask for restrictions on a review body relating to statistical data. I should have thought that a review body would, where necessary, call for whatever material it needed. In the advisory committee reports, not only did we call for statistical evidence in many areas, but on many occasions we criticised the data which were available. It is important that we stop talking about teachers in terms of numbers and start talking about them in terms of quality. A great deal of research needs to be done in that direction.

I agree with my noble friend that in talking about economic criteria we were asking for a view inside the crystal ball. Even had we been given that, should we have believed it? I do not say lightly that in looking forward I believe that the judgment of the review body must be considered. As regards Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I strongly believe that if teachers are to have a review body it should be on the same lines as those of other professions.

4 p.m.

Baroness Cumberlege

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for explaining the amendment, which I did not immediately understand. I too support his comments about there being confidence in the review body not only as regards those who will benefit but also those who will fund it. I have experience of review bodies. Those with which I have been acquainted have established that confidence without the measures proposed in the amendment.

I am responsible for a demand-led service and I know that it is extremely difficult to live within a defined budget when review bodies can produce adjudications. We must absorb the settlements and must also keep the show on the road. However, that is a matter for the skills of management. People are paid reasonable salaries—I do not include myself—to take on that job. They have the knowledge and the skills to do so. That should be recognised as a part of local management.

Clearly decisions must be made. In some of the locally-managed schools which has gripped this philosophy already I see governors using a whole range of skills in order to absorb increases in costs, to obtain better value for money and to generate income. By using their local knowledge they are tying in schools more closely to the local community and we should welcome that. Although I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Poston, is trying to achieve I do not think that the amendment is necessary, as he may have anticipated.

The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, I shall answer this short debate by commenting first on Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. Clause 1(5) requires the review body to give notice to various representative bodies both of the matters referred to it by the Secretary of State and of any relevant directions that he may give. Therefore, right from the start all interested parties will be aware of what the amendments describe as a "financial consideration", should there be one. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, reflected on the different types of considerations which might form a direction under the Bill. Whatever type of direction the review body may be asked to pay regard to—for instance, financial—everyone will know about it from the beginning.

The next stage is for the review body to invite evidence from the local authorities, the teacher associations and others; the Bill requires the review body to do that. The Department of Education and Science will submit its own evidence to the review body just as it has done in each of the past four years to the Interim Advisory Committee. Without plunging down the road which my noble friend Lord Renton warned against, the evidence from the department will comment on and explain any direction that has been made about affordability. No doubt that will include: statistical data or other information on which economic criteria may have been based", as Amendment No. 4 states. Such material forms an important part of the evidence given by the Government to the existing review bodies. The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Rochester, said that the department should give evidence which can explain why a direction has been given, and I hope that will be possible through this process.

It is the practice of the other review bodies, as it has been the regular practice of the Interim Advisory Committee, to provide each of the main interested parties which submit written evidence with copies of the others' submissions. Thus it has been possible for any of the representative bodies concerned not only to challenge the statements of other parties, but also to comment in detail on the data on which it has been based. It is not for me to give any undertakings on behalf of an independent review body which we are seeking to set up under the Bill. However, I join with my noble friend Lady Denton in saying that I should be surprised if the School Teachers' Review Body were to depart from that sensible working practice. Copies of the evidence will be made available to Members of your Lordships' House.

I believe therefore that the Bill will meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that there must be confidence in the review body. The steps that I have outlined should engender confidence. However, there is a further step. In scrutinising the evidence that is put before it, the review body will have the help of the expert secretariat provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, warned me against making that statement, but I do so because it is an important step. The initiative to use the secretariat was taken and clarified in another place. It has been widely welcomed and goes some way to meet the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai—

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I did not mean to criticise the work of the Office of Manpower Economics. I am sure that it fulfils a most valuable function. I said merely that the use of the secretariat does not mean that the Secretary of State should not be prepared to supply his own data.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I hope that I have made clear that the department will expect to continue to give evidence. As my noble friend Lady Denton made clear, one would be surprised if the review body did not want such evidence to come forward from the department, without plunging off down the road against which my noble friend Lord Renton warned and into the whole economic scene. However, in addition, as icing on top of the cake, there will be an expert secretariat which will be able to continue to quarry out further information for the review body as is required.

I turn now to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. One of the themes running through the debates in this House and in another place has been the nature of the directions which the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to give the review body. I hope that we are now at one in seeing a fundamental difference between a constraint—which is binding—and a consideration to which the review body may be asked to have regard.

These amendments, though they certainly refer to considerations, seem, nonetheless, to be more about constraints. If the Government were to set a binding financial constraint, and the review body were to recommend in accordance with that constraint, I agree that under the amendment it could be argued that the Government should never reject those recommendations on cost grounds. But this is not how the new arrangements under the Bill will work. It is important that they are in line with the way in which other review bodies work.

The Government have said that they will direct the review body to have regard to affordability as expressed in the level of education standard spending. The review body must have regard to that but then it will be free to form its judgment. No doubt there will be those giving evidence who will argue that the review body should give a much higher priority to considerations which have nothing to do with the cost of the review body's recommendations. There will probably be a whole cross-current of views given by different people to the review body and there will be many different thoughts going on within it.

However, at the end of the day the review body must reach decisions. In that context, I simply do not believe that there can be hard and fast rules which provide, in effect, that if the review body makes a particular set of recommendations, having been asked to take particular matters into consideration, then the Government will or, as the case may be, will not implement those recommendations. I emphasise that that is not how any of the existing review bodies work.

They work in this way. When the Prime Minister receives the report of a review body—in this case the School Teachers' Review Body—he and his colleagues must consider very carefully the recommendations that it contains and the arguments that support them. The Government must look at the changes which the review body recommends on teachers' pay and conditions and the cost of those changes. The Prime Minister and his colleagues must take account of all relevant facts.

At this point the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he expected to hear those sort of remarks but he wished to have an assurance that the Secretary of State of the day would not arbitrarily turn down the review body's recommendations. However, the Government will implement the recommendations of a review body unless they conclude—and I repeat an assurance which has been given many times by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—that there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.

That is how the Government look at the recommendations of all the review bodies in this country. The difficulty here is that that is not the effect which these amendments would have. Because that is not the case, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and all noble Lords who have joined in the short debate. There is not a great deal between us on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the science of economics is inexact. In fact, all sciences are inexact. Although I agreed with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, said, she made it worse because she implied that economists are crystal ball gazers. However, I shall save my ammunition on that subject for another debate. This is all a question of restrictive practices. I must make sure that economists are kept fully employed and that their professionalism is not undermined.

We agree that financial and economic considerations will be brought to bear. There is no possibility that the review body could deal with these matters except in such terms. The question is how they will be brought to bear. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, clarified an important matter when he made a distinction between considerations and evidence. He said that the Department of Education and Science would bring its economic and financial considerations to bear. That would be in the form of evidence rather than considerations but that would still take place.

I believe that this is an important group of amendments because it would be helpful if, instead of relying on evidence from many different sources, the Department of Education and Science placed rather more of its cards on the table. That is the point of the amendment.

There must be—and I believe that this was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said—a presumption in favour of the review body. If there is no presumption in favour of the review body's recommendations, why should a review body be set up in the first place? If the Prime Minister thinks he knows better, then he does not need a review body but will just announce the outcome. There must be a presumption in favour of the review body, which is the point of the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, concluded by saying that there would be such a presumption except for clear and compelling reasons. I shall not press the point but I do not understand—perhaps because I am not an expert on review bodies—why that should not be written into the Bill. He says that the Prime Minister has given a pledge that the review body's recommendations will be implemented except for clear and compelling reasons. The point of this amendment is concerned with clear and compelling reasons. However, I am willing to take the Government's words rather than have this matter written into the Bill although that is what I should prefer. Having said that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert: ("(4A) Where the Secretary of State proposes to issue any direction as to financial considerations to the review body under subsection (4) above, he shall first satisfy himself that no such considerations would be likely if given effect under section 2(1A) below to any shortages of teachers (whether in one or more subjects) in any local education authority area, and shall lay before Parliament a statement that he is so satisfied.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure why this amendment was not grouped with the others.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I believe that we offered a different grouping but the noble Lord's party favor: red the present grouping. However, I should be delighted to do whatever the noble Lord wishes.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I am merely anxious to make progress and the noble Lord will be delighted to know that I have little more to say on this amendment. When considering the considerations it seems to me essential to the review body's purposes that it looks at the question of scarcity as regards the aggregate of teachers within both subject groupings and areas.

That arises only because this is a managed market. In ordinary free enterprise conditions in a competitive market, scarcity is in principle impossible because prices rise to make supply equal to demand. However, that is not allowed to happen as regards teachers. In other words, the Government or education authorities do not increase the price until scarcity appears. The essential point of the amendment is to emphasise scarcity as a central criterion in assessing what happens. I beg to move.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I commend to the House the thought which underlies this amendment. In my view, its great merit is that it seeks to ensure that any direction which the Secretary of State gives to the review body relating to affordability fulfils the Government's own test as recorded in the Secretary of State's words on 17th April. He said: school teachers' pay should be such as to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient staff of the appropriate calibre within what can be afforded, as expressed at present in the level of education standard spending set by the Government". [Official Report, Commons, 17/4/91; col. 434.] That must mean that directions should be such that as the amendment proposes, they will not lead to any teacher shortages. I am pleased to support that principle.

Lord Belstead

; My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he felt that scarcity should be one element of the review body's considerations. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said much the same, quoting the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, who said that he would not only expect to require the review body to take affordability into account but also would be likely to direct it to have regard to the need to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the right quality within what can he afforded nationally.

The amendment suggests that these two considerations might sometimes pull in opposite directions. Of course, he is perfectly correct. However, this amendment does not simply acknowledge this potential conflict, but seeks to impose a single solution. It is possible that the effect of this amendment, whether the noble Lord intended it or not, would be that, wherever there is such a conflict, affordability must always take second place.

The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State, when giving a financial direction, to lay before Parliament a statement that, if the review body were to act in accordance with that consideration and its subsequent recommendations were to be implemented by the Government, the effect, in the Secretary of State's judgment, would not be such as to make it more difficult for authorities to fill vacant teaching posts.

That is becoming somewhat complicated and I believe the position to be more straightforward. The Government said that they will ask the review body to take into account the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers, and also to take into account the resources available to local education authorities through education standard spending.

Those who will be giving evidence while the review body is deliberating will be free to suggest that the review body should attach more importance to one or other of those considerations or should pay greater heed to quite different factors. But the Government will be looking to the review body to exercise its own independent judgment in the light of all the evidence placed before it. That is exactly the purpose of all review bodies in this country. Amendments to the Bill should not alter that fact.

When the review body reports to the Prime Minister it will be for the Government to exercise their own judgment. At the risk of being tedious I repeat once again the assurances given many times by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place, that the review body's recommendations will be accepted unless there are clear and compelling reasons why they should not be.

Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Government have taken a significant step in offering a review body to teachers, and that step has been widely welcomed. Existing review bodies are free to make up their own minds about the evidence available to them. The school teachers' review body ought to be allowed to operate in exactly the same way.

Although the amendment gave rise to what has been from my point of view an interesting exchange—it was interesting to hear noble Lords on the other side—and there was a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said with which I agreed, it would entrench upon the freedom of the review body to make up its mind because it imposes a precondition. It is on that ground that I resist it.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his reply. Teacher shortage and the way the labour market works is a difficult subject and I am not sure that there is an easy solution to the problem. The anxiety felt by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself was that we did not want the review body to operate in a way which exacerbated the shortages. We want to go further; we hope that one outcome of the review body is that sooner rather than later we may move away from the era of teacher shortages. In a sense it is a kind of irrationality that one defines the demand—in this case the need—for teachers and then one does not provide a pay structure to enable that demand to be met; in other words, we end up with this peculiar phenomenon called shortages. Shortages do not occur in trade in most goods and services. They seem to occur in one or two specific areas, usually in the public sector and usually to do with occupations like teaching.

The point we were attempting to emphasise was the desirability for the pay review body to move forward and come to grips with the shortage problem, which involves some fundamental thinking. The amendment was not concerned with the technicalities of that; it was an attempt to tease out some commitment from the Government side as well as ours in favour of dealing with shortages. We have at least learnt a little. I speak as a non-expert, but it was not the aim of the amendment to make the problem worse rather than better.

Having said that, and having commented on the shortages and accepted that there will be a pay review body, we shall keep an eye on the situation as something that interests us when looking at the outcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]

Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1. line 20, at end insert: ("( ) The review body may consider matters other than those specifically referred to it by the Secretary of State").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I raised this issue at Committee stage but withdrew it because I felt we should discuss also the issue contained in Amendment No. 6, to which I shall speak presently. I feel that the two are connected.

We on these Benches and the profession accept the principle of a review body not because we believe it to be an ideal solution but because it is perhaps the best in the circumstances. We do not like the centralisation involved and the profession will only be reassured when it sees the scheme in action and believes in it. Here we come up against the all important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others, regarding the absolute need for confidence on the part of all those involved—the teachers and the taxpayers.

The teachers' position at the moment is sensitive. On the one hand, a great many of us have in the background of our minds the unfortunate events of the 1980s when certain sections of the profession were perhaps ill advised enough to enter upon industrial action. Therefore, the profession tends to be regarded as needing to be watched closely; the headmaster must be at hand with the cane at the ready. On the other hand, we are all well aware that the great plans for education which all three main political parties have in mind are absolutely and quintessentially dependent upon the willing co-operation of the teachers. Without that everything will come to naught.

It is in order to ensure the teachers' co-operation and bolster their confidence in the review body that Amendment No. 5 is advisable. I cannot see any objection to it. I am sure that I shall be told that it is not necessary. I cannot accept that because it can do no harm and will inspire confidence.

At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said, the review body can decide to address matters other than those specifically referred to it by the Secretary of State".— [Official Report, 4/7/91; col. 1140.] Amendment No. 5 contains virtually those exact words. As far as I can see there can be no objection to that. A little later the noble Lord said, The Bill defines duties. In this case the Prime Minister's duty is to set up the schoolteachers' review body for this purpose, and the review body's duty is to examine and report on the matters referred to it within a specified time". I would argue that it should also be the duty of the review body to discuss any other matter which it considers to be relevant. If that is also its duty, why not state it in the amendment? I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. It is a simple and straightforward change to the Bill and one that everybody in the House should have little difficulty in accepting. As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, said, it contains the very words used by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, at Committee stage.

It may be argued that the amendment is unnecessary. But governments change, Secretaries of State change and if it is the case that the Government believe that the review body should be allowed to address matters other than those specifically referred to it by the Secretary of State, then that should be included on the face of the Bill. I argue in favour of doing that for two reasons. The first relates to the confidence question referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie. The amendment is likely to make the teaching profession, parents, students and all those affected by the nature and quality of our education system, feel greater confidence if they believe that it is not simply a review body that must respond to central diktats by the Secretary of State. I know that not only did the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, deny at Committee stage that that was the case, but at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said: Can the Secretary of State prevent the review body from considering any matter? Again it is important for me to say that from my reading he cannot. Clause 1 defines the review body's duty to make recommendations on any specific matter referred to it and to report within a set time. But its report will be able to range more widely if it considers that to be appropriate".—[Official Report, 21/6/91; col. 361.] If the Minister believes that, surely it is acceptable to write this small but sensible amendment into the Bill, the purpose of which everyone seems to accept.

The second reason for doing so, besides building confidence in the education world, is that it will go a long way to completely guarantee the independence and integrity of the review body. That again is something that everybody in the House feels is important. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness over this matter for a purely technical reason. It could be construed that, when the Secretary of State has given reasons under Clause 1(4), those reasons should be the only ones which the review body is to consider. I hope I shall be forgiven for expressing an old Latin tag which lawyers still use; namely, expressio unius est exclusio alterius—if we express one thing we are deemed to exclude another. It would be very unfortunate—if it is the intention that the review body may consider matters in addition to those referred to it by the Secretary of State—for someone to come along, perhaps on judicial review, and say, "No, you cannot consider those other matters because you have been given the directions as to the matters that you are to consider". Although I do not expect an answer at this moment from my noble friend on this very technical point, I hope that it will be considered. If the Government agree in substance with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have said, they need not necessarily show it in the form of Amendment No. 5. The matter could be put by saying at the beginning of subsection (4): Without prejudice to the power of the review body to consider other matters, the Secretary of State may give directions to the review body", and so forth. Something on those lines could save trouble in future. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider that proposition.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the movers of the amendment. I am still trying, to assess what kind of "other matters" need to be referred to the review body. Clearly, we are dealing with remuneration and conditions of employment for school teachers. I was a little disturbed during the last debate because we were talking in terms that if there is not enough money presumably one then juggles with salaries. I do not know what other interpretation can be, put on the matter. Surely it is unwise to have too many matters referred to the review body, which has very definite terms of reference. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, would like to explain to me what he has in mind and what kinds of other matters he would like referred to the review body.

Baroness Denton of Wakefield

My Lords, it is implicit in the setting up of the review body that it should consider other matters should they become apparent. There is little point in a review body being set up, listening to the evidence presented to it, and not examining all the matters that come through. That is one or the most important factors for the review body. Giver, that the report is delivered on time, which is crucial for school teachers, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether that is implicit in the Bill.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for taking part in the discussion on this amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, for his broad welcome for the principle of the review body, whatever other reservations he may have. This amendment pursues an issue which has been given a thorough airing in your Lordships' House both during debate on Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee. It has also been the subject of debate on several occasions in another place. On all those occasions we have made it as clear as we could that the amendment is unnecessary because it confers on this body a power which it already enjoys. However, I recognise that the question continues to trouble your Lordships.

I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I appear to be covering old ground. I fear that that is exactly what I am going to do, and there is little I can do to light up the landscape despite my own words being used in the text of the amendment. The Government fully accept, as noble Lords have argued, that the review body should be free to consider issues which go outside the specific matters referred to it by the Secretary of State. They have no difficulty with the notion that, having decided to consider other matters relating to statutory conditions of employment, the review body may see fit to make recommendations on those matters. They accept that the Secretary of State should be able to put those recommendations into effect through a pay and conditions order; and the Bill gives him the power to do so.

Where noble Lords opposite and I part company is over the fear that the review body may not have those powers unless they are written on to the face of the Bill. I confirm, once more, that it does have such powers. Certain matters need to be written on to the face of the Bill and others do not. The Bill certainly needs to specify duties. It must place a clear duty on the Prime Minister to appoint the review body and require it to report on specific matters referred to it by the Secretary of State within a set time. Where a power is given which is to be constrained, that too must be on the face of the Bill. So, if the Secretary of State is to be given the power in certain specific circumstances to make a pay and conditions order without reference to the review body, those circumstances must be specified in the Bill.

But it should not be thought that specifying the duties of the review body, of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State, necessarily constrains the power which the review body, as an assembly of individuals, has to consider and to make recommendations as it wishes on such additional matters relating to the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers. These recommendations would have exactly the same status as those which address matters referred to it by the Secretary of State. It may help noble Lords if I emphasise that the Government's commitment to implement recommendations, unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so, applies to all recommendations.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised a technical question which I hope I can answer by saying that Clause 1(4) is about the directions given to the review body and the amendment is about the matters to be considered. As to the matters referred, the review body would need to be expressly constrained to prevent it from considering whatever it wished.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before my noble friend goes any further, perhaps I may say that it seems to me that that is a good answer to the purely technical point that I made.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I thank my noble friend. The words contained in the amendment are a statement of fact. Putting them on the face of the Bill will add nothing to their force. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Peston

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and so that I can understand, essentially, his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is he saying categorically that, having said that the amendment is a statement of fact, the worries of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as applied to that amendment, cannot possibly arise and that, as long as the review body is dealing with matters to do with the pay and conditions of teachers, no problem of judicial review or anything like that can arise? I am a layman in these matters. Is the noble Lord saying categorically that no problem can arise along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in connection with the matter in the amendment? Is that what he is saying?

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to read what my noble friend Lord Renton said. I shall read everything, but I think I am saying precisely that. It cannot arise.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he saying that because he has asserted that it is the intention of the Government it should be so, or is he saying it because he reckons that it is covered in the words of the Bill? That is a very different matter. It is the old, old story. What is said in the House is of no significance when it comes to a case. What is important is what is in the Bill. If the noble Lord can tell us that the Bill provides that this matter cannot be challenged or be subject to judicial review, that is one thing, but however much we believe the noble Lord—and we do—that would have no force of law.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe I covered that point when I said that it should not be thought that specifying the duties of the review body, of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State necessarily constrains the power which the review body, as an assembly of individuals, has to consider and to make recommendations as it wishes on such additional matters relating to the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers. Those recommendations would have exactly the same status as those which address matters referred to it by the Secretary of State.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, I have not followed all the intricacies of the argument but it seems that the Government have still not given the assurances that we should like for the sake of the confidence of the teachers. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked what other matters the review body could possibly have to consider. The Bill states that it will consider only what the Secretary of State asks it to consider. Other matters of equal importance also related to remuneration and to conditions of service of teachers may not have been referred to it. It is the intention of the amendment that it should be on the face of the Bill that the review body may consider such matters. In the circumstances, I should like to press the amendment and test the opinion of the House.

4.42 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 123.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Ardwick, L.	Lawrence, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blease, L.	Longford, E.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Lovell-Davies, L.
Bottomley, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Mar, C.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Nathan, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Nicol, B.
David, B.	Ogmore, L.
Desai, L.	Peston, L.
Ennals, L.	Phillips, B.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Ezra, L.	Rea, L.
Falkland, V.	Redesdale, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]
Foot, L.	Rochester, L.
Galpern, L.	Scanlon, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Seear, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Sefton of Garston, L.
	Shackleton, L.
Grey, E.	Shepherd, L.
Hampton, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hanworth, V.	Strabolgi, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Tordoff, L.
Jenkins of Hillhead, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Underhill, L.
John-Mackie, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Kearton, L.	White, B.
Kennet, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Denham, L.
Astor, V.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Auckland, L.	Derwent, L.
Aylestone, L.	Downshire, M.
Beaverbrook, L.	Eccles, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Elibank, L.
Beloff, L.	Elles, B.
Belstead, L.	Elliot of Harwood, B.
Bessborough, E.	Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Birdwood, L.	Elton, L.
Blake, L.	Erroll, E.
Blatch, B.	Faithfull, B.
Blyth, L.	Ferrers, E.
Boardman, L.	Flather, B.
Borthwick, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Fraser of Kilmorack, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Grantchester, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Gray of Contin, L.
Butterworth, L.	Gridley, L.
Caithness, E.	Haig, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.
Carnock, L.	Halsbury, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	Harlech, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Harmsworth, L.
Cockfield, L.	Havers, L.
Coleraine, L.	Henley, L.
Colnbrook, L.	Hesketh, L.[Teller.]
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Hood, V.
Cottesloe, L.	Hooper, B.
Craigmyle, L.	Howe, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.
Cumberlege, B.	Jeffreys, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Johnston of Rockport, L.

Joseph, L.	Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Kitchener, E.	Orkney, E.
Lauderdale, E.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Lindsay, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Long, V.	Pender, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Prior, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Mancroft, L.	Renton, L.
Mantor, L.	Renwick, L.
Margadale, L.	Richardson, L.
Marlesford, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Merrivale, L.	Saint Albans, D.
Mersey, V.	Saint Oswald, L.
Middleton, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Milverton, L.	Seccombe, B.
Monk Bretton, L.	Sharples, B.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Stedman, B.
Montgcmery of Alamein, V.	Strathclyde, L.
Mottistone, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Mountevans, L.	Sudeley, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Terrington, L.
Munste, E.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Trumpington, B.
Nelson, E.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Newall. L.	Waddington, L.
Norrie, L.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Nugent of Guildford, L.	Westbury, L.
O'Brien of Lothbury, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

4.51 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 2, line 16, at end insert: ("(6A) Any of the relevant persons referred to in subsection (6B) below may request the Secretary of State to refer to the review body under subsection (1) above such matters relating to statutory conditions of employment of school teachers as that person may consider appropriate, and the Secretary of State shall not refuse such a request without clear and compelling reasons stated in writing to the person concerned. (6B) For the purposes of subsection (6A) above, the relevant persons shall be—

1. (a) any association of local education authorities;
2. (b) bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools; and
3. (c) bodies representing school teachers.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken of our misgivings about too much centralisation. The review body is to consider not merely pay but also conditions of service. That includes hours of work, days of work, duties, class sizes, and so on. That is not the case with any other review body. Therefore, we do not know how it will work in practice. For example, it is not the case with nurses. These matters are to be considered by a body outside the profession. Decisions may be imposed upon the profession by those who are possibly not well enough informed. Our urging that it ought to be stipulated that the review body should include those with relevant knowledge of education has been rejected. We have to accept that fact. However, we feel that at least the profession, or its representatives, should be able to initiate discussion on issues which it considers important.

Under the terms of the Bill, the review body must refer to certain bodies proposed in Clause 1(5) (a). We feel that it should be a two-way process. How may these same bodies refer to the review body any matters which they think need discussion? We think that they should have this express right and that the Secretary of State should have the duty of giving his reasons if he refuses that right. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, we support the amendment. Under the current wording of Clause 1, the review body is only able to consider, matters relating to the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers in England and Wales as may from time to time be referred to the review body by the Secretary of State". However, many other organisations have an interest in teachers' pay, especially in conditions of service. The associations of local education authorities, the governors of voluntary schools and school teachers and their organisations all have a particular interest in the statutory conditions of employment of school teachers. We believe it important that such organisations should be allowed to refer matters to the review body for its consideration.

Education in this country has always been seen as a kind of partnership involving central government, local government and the professions involved. In Standing Committee in another place, the Minister of State accepted that, in submitting their evidence, teacher associations and employers will be able to suggest issues which they believe the review body should consider. That is a helpful reassurance. But, again, we believe that it would be right to place this entitlement on the face of the Bill.

The amendment still gives the Secretary of State the right of veto if there are "clear and compelling reasons" for him to use that power. However, it also ensures that the main interested parties can refer matters to the review body if they so wish. I hope very much that the amendment will be acceptable to the Government.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

I understand the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment. But I hope that I shall be able to convince the House that it is both unnecessary and inappropriate.

The noble Lord remains concerned that the review body will be hemmed in by the Secretary of State's references and that there may be matters which LEAs or the teacher associations think should be addressed by the review body but which can be left off the agenda. He therefore wants the various interested parties to be able, as it were, to plug any gaps in the Secretary of State's references to the review body by requiring him—unless he has "clear and compelling reasons" not to do so—to refer such other matters as they may request.

We covered much of this ground in Committee and in discussing the last amendment. As I explained, the review body is under a duty to consider and report on matters referred to it by the Secretary of State. But that does not mean that it cannot report on other matters as well. If the unions or employers believe that there are specific issues which the review body ought to address they can, and no doubt will, make that clear in their evidence to the review body—or earlier than that if they wish. As Ministers made clear during the debates in another place, the Secretary of State intends to remind the review body each year that it can make recommendations across the whole range of statutory conditions of employment, not just on the specific issues identified by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State has made it perfectly clear that he intends to make references to the review body on a regular basis. I accept that there may be occasions when a mid-year reference would be appropriate to deal with a specific technical matter or to consider an urgent problem which had arisen. It would, of course, be open to any association or individual to approach the Secretary of State and ask for a particular matter to be referred to the review body in mid-year: that goes without saying. If my right honourable friend were to receive such a request in writing he would of course reply in writing. Moreover, if he were unwilling to grant the request, he would of course give his reasons.

The review body is to be established by the Prime Minister to advise him and the Secretary of State on the pay and conditions of school teachers. The decision whether to ask for advice on a particular matter must therefore rest with the Government and not with the unions or employers. But of course the review body will take evidence from all interested parties and give careful consideration to that evidence. It will, as I have said, be able to make recommendations on any matter concerned with teachers' statutory pay and conditions.

There is a further point I should like to make. Existing review bodies operate on a regular, cyclical timetable. They receive written evidence from September, hear oral evidence over the following weeks, and report in January each year. While it may very occasionally be necessary to give an in-year reference, we would expect the school teachers' review body to operate for the most part in exactly the same way. It would clearly be very disruptive for any review body to be constantly bombarded with requests to look at this or that specific issue which happened to be of concern to one or other of the interested parties. The amendment would open the door to that kind of situation and I cannot see how it could be beneficial to the smooth operation of the review body system.

As I said, there may sometimes be circumstances in which the Secretary of State may make a mid-year reference following representations from unions or employers. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that happening. But the role of a review body is to give the Prime Minister independent advice when he requests it. The amendment adds nothing to the Bill and is, I suggest, a misunderstanding of the role of a review body. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

5 p.m.

Lord Ritchie of Dundee

My Lords, again we only have assurances. The Minister said something to the effect that any body or gathering of interested parties can at any time make reference to the review body on any issue which it thinks should be discussed. We must accept that to be the case and I appreciate that if constant references were made throughout the year it might be disruptive to the work of the review body. Again, it is a matter of confidence on the part of the profession and all involved. On this occasion, we must accept the assurances of the Minister that any matter can be discussed by the review body and that that will include matters that the interested parties we have named consider should be discussed. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5 p.m.

Clause 2 [Orders relating to statutory conditions of employment]:

[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]

Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 30, leave out from ("case") to end of line 32 and insert ("no such order shall be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in precisely the same form as that which I moved in Committee. I make no apology because at the end of our discussion on that occasion I said that I was not altogether satisfied with the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Accordingly, I gave notice that I might well wish to return to the matter at a later stage, and that is what I am doing.

It is plain from Clause 2(9) that if the Secretary of State decides to make any material modification to recommendations of the review body his decision will be subject to annulment only by a negative resolution of either House of Parliament. In contrast, we feel keenly that a decision to modify materially the review body's findings should be validated by an affirmative resolution in both Houses.

In replying to our earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that he thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and I had to a considerable extent overlooked the procedures followed in implementing settlements in other public sector pay groups. For example, the Home Secretary made regulations on police pay subject only to the negative resolution procedure. Perhaps the most significant point, in the noble Lord's view, was that both the pay and conditions of staff in the National Health Service—whose remuneration is the subject of recommendations by two review bodies—were simply approved by the Secretary of State without any parliamentary procedure at all.

The noble Lord also gave instances of how, under the Bill, the review body would be subject to what he called a wealth of consultation. He said that at its conclusion the Secretary of State may decide to implement the majority of the recommendations in full, but make one or two changes at the margins, perhaps in response to points made in consultations. He questioned the desirability of then having to resort to an affirmative resolution. I hope that that is a fair summary of what he said in Committee.

I readily acknowledge the validity of the points he made about both other review body procedures and the provisions in the Bill for consultation before decision making. Taken together, however, they do not in my view count for as much as what I believe to be the conclusive argument in favour of the use of the affirmative resolution procedure in this case. It is simply that the review body for school teachers, unlike all the others, is to be a body set up by Parliament. It is therefore Parliament that should positively take responsibility if the body's recommendations are in any respect to be overturned by the Executive. That is all the more desirable because in the case of other public services covered by review bodies the Government are themselves both the paymaster and the employer. In this case, the circumstances are quite different because in making any material modifications to the recommendations of the review body the Government would impose their view on other employing organisations.

No doubt that consideration led to the provision in the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 that the Secretary of State could set aside the recommendations of an arbitration body only if each House of Parliament resolved that national economic circumstances so required. That precedent was followed in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 which established the procedures that were adopted in the case of orders giving effect to recommendations of the interim advisory committee. This amendment therefore provides for what we regard as the maintenance of an essential constitutional safeguard. I beg to move.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, in supporting the amendment I wish to draw the attention of the House to one other matter in addition to what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has already said. The pay and conditions of teachers are of fundamental importance in the education system. They are far more important than almost any other legislation. So much else hangs on both the conditions of service and teachers' pay in terms of the quality of education that we deliver in our primary and secondary schools that it seems to me particularly important that the affirmative procedure should apply in this case. Education is a highly labour intensive industry where the costs of staff as against other costs account for a huge proportion of expenditure.

I also wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said about the differences between this review body and others. First, it was set up by Parliament and, secondly, it covers conditions of service. I know that Ministers may reply that this has already had a thorough airing. However, I hope that they will think again and perhaps explain why their views in 1991 are different from those put forward in 1987 in relation to the interim advisory committee. I am still unclear as to why there should be a different approach in that case from the one adopted for this Bill.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have invoked the precedent of the 1987 Act in arguing that there ought to be an affirmative resolution procedure in the Bill. Before trying to reply to the noble Baroness in a little more detail, perhaps I may generally remind your Lordships that we are not now considering the 1987 Act. We are considering something different. The Bill is concerned with the review body, not the continuation of the Interim Advisory Committee. The relevant precedent is not the 1987 Act but the existing review bodies.

None of the review bodies has its pay increases approved by Parliament in the way that noble Lords opposite suggested should apply to teachers, even though their pay rates, if not the review bodies which make the recommendations, have a statutory basis. Individual procedures vary in detail; but as regards other review bodies in each case pay settlements are approved by the relevant Minister and promulgated sometimes without reference to Parliament.

The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, has mentioned my next point. As regards the Home Secretary putting into effect police pay recommendations, the Secretary of State for Scotland putting into effect or overriding the arbitration recommendations for school teachers' pay or the Secretary of State for Health putting or not putting into effect recommendations for the health service, we do not agree that the procedure urged upon us today is relevant to the review bodies concerned with the professions I have just mentioned.

I have difficulty in understanding why we should wish teachers to be in a different position from the other review body groups that both the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and I have mentioned, particularly as a wealth of consultation has been built into this Bill. I referred to that in Committee and I do not wish to weary the House by reiterating it today. However, the essential point is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State would modify or reject the recommendations of the review body only where, after full consultation with all the interested parties, he were to decide that there were clear and compelling reasons to do so. That is exactly the procedure that is followed with other review bodies in this country at the present time.

On a purely practical level—this point was not mentioned in Committee or today—the affirmative resolution procedure could lead to delays in pay awards reaching teachers' pockets. Because the implementation of this year's Interim Advisory Committee recommendations was staged, the order putting the pay increases into effect was subject to affirmative resolution. Arguably there is a perfectly good case for that procedure with the IAC which is definitely not a review body and which is subject to cash limits. But although the order for the increase in teachers' pay this year was laid before the House at the beginning of May, we were not able to debate it until towards the end of June. That has meant that employers were not obliged to pay teachers their salary increases until the end of June, some three months after the salary increases were due to take effect.

It is not therefore just philosophical or political differences which lead me to resist this amendment. I have practical reasons for doing so. The noble Baroness said that she could not wholly understand why in 1987 I stood at the Dispatch Box and argued in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure, whereas I am not doing so today. That is the case because the two bodies we are discussing are clearly different. The Interim Advisory Committee set up under the 1987 Act was a body subject to cash limits. It was not a review body. In the case we are discussing today noble Lords are trying to set up a review body. In the case of other review bodies—at least in the case of the examples I and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, have mentioned—the Government do not have to resort to affirmative resolution. In addition, this Bill bends over backwards to include consultation. There is a difference of view over this matter. I am sorry that I am not being helpful, but I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised at the noble Lord's comments. It is fair to add that neither he, I, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have said anything very different to what was said in Committee. On the other hand, I feel—I am sure I speak for others on this side of the House—that the teachers' review body is sufficiently different from other bodies as it is a statutory body. I mentioned that in moving the amendment. In this case we feel it is appropriate to have an affirmative resolution procedure. I do not wish to waste any further time of your Lordships' House, but I feel strongly enough about this matter to wish to press the amendment to a Division.

5.15 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 109.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	John-Mackie, L.
Ardwick, L.	Kilbracken. L.
Aylestone, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Lockwood, B.
Birk, B.	Longford, E.
Blackstone, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Blease, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Mayhew, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Northfield, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Peston, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Phillips, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
David, B.	Prys-Davics, L.
Desai, L.	Rea, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Redesdale, L.
Ezra, L.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Fisher of Rednal, B.	Rochester, L. [Teller.]
Foot, L.	Seear, B.
Galpern, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Gladwyn, L.	Shackleton, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]	Shepherd, L.
	Stedman, B.
Grey, E.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Grimond, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Hampton, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Hanworth, V.	Tordoff, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Underhill, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Wallace of Coslany, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.	White, B.
Howie of Troon, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Belstead, L.
Ampthill, L.	Bessborough, E.
Astor, V.	Blake, L.
Bauer, L.	Blatch, B.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Blyth, L.
Beloff, L.	Boardman, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Joseph, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Killearn, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Kimball, L.
Butterworth, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Caithness, E.	Kitchener, E.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Long, V.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Carnock, L.	Lyell, L.
Cavendish of Furness, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Macleod of Borve, B.
Coleraine, L.	Mar, C.
Colnbrook, L.	Margadale, L.
Constantine of Stanmore, L.	Marlesford, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Merrivale, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Middleton, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Milverton, L.
Davidson, V. [Teller.]	Monk Bretton, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Derwent, L.	Mottistone, L.
Downshire, M.	Mountevans, L.
Eccles, V.	Munster, E.
Elibank, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Nelson, E.
Elton, L.	Norrie, L.
Erroll, E.	Orkney, E.
Faithfull, B.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Fanshawe of Richmond, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Flather, B.	Pender, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Renton, L.
Grantchester, L.	Renwick, L.
Gray of Contin, L.	Saint Albans, D.
Haig, E.	Saint Oswald, L.
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
	Seccombe, B.
Halsbury, E.	Sharples, B.
Harlech, L.	Somerset, D.
Harmsworth, L.	Strange, B.
Havers, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Henley, L.	Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.
Hesketh, L. [Teller.]	Sudeley, L.
Holderness, L.	Teviot, L.
Hood, V.	Trumpington, B.
Hooper, B.	Vaux of Harrowden, L.
Howe, E.	Waddington, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Wade of Chorlton, L.
Jeffreys, L.	Westbury, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.22 p.m.

Clause 5 [Interpretation, orders and application of provisions of Education Act 1944]:

Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 5, line 42, at end insert: ("(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, the Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the exclusion from statutory conditions of employment of the following—

1. (a) conditions of service set out in the "Conditions of Service for Schoolteachers in England and Wales" (the Burgundy Book);
2. (b) agreements between local education authorities and representatives of teachers as notified to the Secretary of State by the date of Royal Assent relating to—
   1. (i) local arrangements for the allocation of working time;
   2. (ii) local arrangements for the allocation of duties;
   3. (iii) local arrangements for teacher appraisal;
   4. (iv) contractual terms giving effect to regulations issued under race relations legislation; and
   5. (v) contractual terms giving effect to regulations issued under sex discrimination legislation;
3. (c) such other agreements which may be reached from time to time between local education authorities and 45 representatives of teachers which relate to agreements notified to the Secretary of State under paragraph (b) above;
4. (d) such other agreements which may be reached from time to time between local education authorities and representatives of teachers relating to conditions other than duties and working time.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise in advance for taking a little longer over this amendment than over some of the previous amendments, but it raises a number of rather complicated issues, some of which emerged at Committee stage.

Perhaps I may begin by setting out what I believe to be the present position concerning local flexibility with respect to conditions. On the one hand, the LEA employers have a clear policy on school teachers' pay of developing a national framework which allows for local flexibility. On the other hand, that policy has been broadly accepted by the Government. At the same time the role of the LEAs in setting conditions of service for staff employed in schools following the introduction of local management of schools has been accepted by the Government. It has not, as I understand it, been the policy of the Government since LMS was introduced to prevent local authorities negotiating with the teachers in their areas particular conditions of employment. Nor am I aware of any complaints from the schools to which local management conditions apply that that has constrained them in any way. Perhaps the Minister will tell me if I am wrong about that.

Since putting down the amendment we have received a helpful letter from the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. He claims in his letter that local management of schools will provide individual school:; with the flexibility to offer different levels of pay as required locally. However, the problem is that individual schools could, as a result, suffer at the expense of schools offering better conditions. I hope that the noble Lord who speaks for the Government will be able to take up that point and let us know the Government's view.

What worries us about the new arrangements is that the wording of Clause 2(7) of the current Bill rules out any local flexibility on conditions of service even though that has been allowed under the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. Given the nature of the debate at Committee stage I should like to take a little time to go through the existing legislation, and I apologise if it may be a little technical.

Under Section 3(6) of the 1987 Act local author ties' contracts can cover conditions of service issues provided they are consistent with the provisions of the statutory pay and conditions document. Clause 2(7) of the Bill states that the contract of employment of a school teacher shall contain no terms other than those set out in a pay and conditions order. In other words, the flexibility which has been allowed up to now under the 1987 Act is removed by Clause 2(7).

At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, made reference to other clauses in the Bill, pointing to areas where local flexibility might be safeguarded. However, that does not answer the main point of why Clause 2(7) is written in such a restrictive way. We are still concerned about that.

The Minister referred at Committee stage to Clause 2(4), which would allow the pay and conditions order to confer discretions on local education authorities or governing bodies in respect of pay and conditions of service. However, to achieve that local discretion local authorities would have to persuade the review body then to persuade the Secretary of State to give them back the flexibility which they currently have. That does not appear to be a sensible way to go about matters.

The amendment deals with Clause 5(3), which has been pointed to as the power which would enable the Secretary of State to allow various conditions of service matters to be regarded as being outside the remit of the review body. That is the central issue of concern. It has two shortcomings. First, it involves the Secretary of State in conditions of service areas which have not been his concern up to now. Indeed, in 1987 the Secretary of State had the clear option of incorporating all conditions of service but chose, sensibly, to concentrate on the key issues of specifying professional duties and working time and not to go into other details.

It is accepted that Clause 5(3) contains key powers for the Secretary of State to act as a watchdog over any action of the local authorities. Under that power the Secretary of State would be able to rule out any agreements reached on issues such as class size and teacher contact time which the Government regard as being within the purview of local management. As with the debate on Clause 2(4), it is difficult to see the logic in the Government taking powers from local authorities in Clause 2(7) only apparently to give them back through the device of issuing exclusion orders under Clause 5(3).

The amendment points to a further difficulty. It is one thing for the Secretary of State to be able to legalise existing conditions of service agreements. However, it is far from clear how future local decisions on issues such as equal opportunities, on which changes in the law in Europe are taking place rapidly, could be sensibly accommodated under the proposed arrangements.

Clause 1(2) defines statutory conditions of employment to include pay and such other conditions of employment related to teachers' professional duties and working time. That is a wide remit and covers a number of areas currently dealt with by local or national agreements.

On working time, paragraph 36(1) (c) of the statutory pay and conditions document states that the provisions on working time do not apply to teachers working in residential establishments. Those are areas where local authorities should expect to be able to reach agreements that are binding on teachers. In terms of working time, the following are examples of issues currently covered by collective agreements: leave of absence on maternity, paternity, adoption and compassionate grounds; in connection with religious festivals and when fulfilling public duties, as in the case of magistrates, councillors and governors; and in instances of illness or health and safety inspections. The examples are numerous.

On the question of school teachers' duties, the pay and conditions document merely sets a framework of duties. A good example of how that framework operates can be found in paragraph 27 of the document. That sets out the overriding requirements for the job of head teacher and specifies the ground rules under which he or she must carry out his or her professional duties by recognising, for example, the role of governing bodies, LEAs and the law in relation to the duties of head teachers. Clearly, that paragraph sanctions the development of local rules and policies to build on the professional duties of head teachers which are set out in the statutory document.

Paragraph 35 of the document, which deals with the professional duties of teachers, begins by stating: The following duties shall be deemed to be included in the professional duties which a school teacher may be required to perform". That makes it clear that the list is not exclusive.

Although the pay and conditions document sets a broad framework of duties, it has often been the case that, in allocating particular duties to school teachers, authorities will use various devices—for example, job descriptions—as part of the contract of employment of the individual teacher. Additional duties may be required to be specified in relation to working in residential establishments or on jobs such as the provision of school-based youth and community activities—another important area—which are not fully covered by the pay and conditions document. Those are just a few illustrations of areas in which local flexibility is important.

That brings me back to the helpful letter of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. With reference to the pay and conditions order to which I have referred, the Minister claims that nothing in the Burgundy Book will be included in the order. However, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has received a letter from a Department of Education and Science official claiming that the department is still considering what to include from the book. Do the Government intend—I ask the Minister directly and I hope to receive a reply—to exclude everything contained in the Burgundy Book from the terms of the order? If that is the case, what will the Government do when revising the Burgundy Book? Will it have to be checked with the order each time to make sure that it does not contain the same matters as the order?

Perhaps I may make one further point in relation to the letter. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, says in his final paragraph that an order on race and sex discrimination may be necessary. Does that mean that orders will be necessary every time the Government realise that the terms of reference of the pay review body conflict with the requirements of local flexibility? If the Government, as we argue, were to allow local flexibility, which is not inconsistent with the Bill, such orders would not be necessary. I should have thought that we would all be saved a great deal of trouble. As I stressed, the list of examples could become much longer. If the Secretary of State intends to use the powers under Clause 5(3) rather than restoring the local flexibility in Clause 2(7), the amendment is the only sensible way forward.

In conclusion, when my noble friends moved amendments to Clause 2(7) in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was unwilling to accept many of the arguments. We are now trying an alternative approach to get round the problem by moving this new amendment to Clause 5. Notwithstanding the letter sent to my noble friend Lady David in which the Government make it clear that they are prepared to make orders under Clause 5(3) defining those matters to be excluded from statutory conditions of employment, we believe that it would be better if the main exclusions were on the face of the Bill. That is the aim of the amendment. I beg to move.

5.30 p.m.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has delivered a comprehensive and detailed speech in moving the amendment and I do not intend to say much more. However, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for his careful and comprehensive reply even if it does not meet all our anxieties. Our overriding anxiety—we want to have this incorporated into the Act so that we know it is certain—is that there should be the considerable flexibility that is needed if the different conditions of schools in different parts of the country, be they inner city compared with rural, north compared with south, or however one likes to measure it, are to be catered for. There is no question but that the conditions in schools, the requirements, the shortages of teachers and the problems of recruitment and retention are so different in different parts of the country that, if we are to fulfil our obligations to ensure that there is proper education for all children everywhere, there must be a maximum degree of flexibility in the power to recruit and remunerate in order to retain staff. That may mean, as I mentioned in Committee, that there are quite considerable differences in what is offered, not only in money but in other ways.

As I understood it, the burden of the Minister's letter was that all is well and that the Government believe in and always have believed in flexibility. If that is so—perhaps I am being very stupid about this—why on earth do we have Clause 2(7) which states that a teacher's contract of employment may contain no terms other than those which have affect by virtue of a pay and conditions order". That boils down to what I want to say: why has the clause been incorporated if everything is to be as flexible as the noble Lord's letter implies that it has been in the past and will be in the future? If there is a guarantee of flexibility, we shall be satisfied, but what is the point of Clause 2(7) if that flexibility is to be included?

I also wish to echo the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that, although there is an assurance as regards conditions that exist at present, what will happen to changes in the future in relation to the Burgundy Book? I must confess that I am not as familiar with the Burgundy Book as perhaps I should be. I do not even know whether it is a colour or a place, but that is neither here nor there. I am glad to support the amendment as this is a matter of such importance.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to say that, as I raised this matter and moved an amendment in Committee, the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, was written to me. I should like to thank him 7or the length of his letter and for the fact that he took a great deal of trouble in trying to cover the points. I shall not go into those points about which we are still not clear because that has been done admirably by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but I wanted to put my thanks on record.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and others who acknowledged my long letter. Having listened to the long, technical debate, I realise that there may be even longer letters going round.

Before dealing with the details of the amendment, it may be helpful if I recall once again the reason why the Bill is drafted as it is. As was said in Committee, there is an important difference between the Bill and the 1987 Act. The 1987 Act allowed employers to include in teachers' contracts provisions in the areas of professional duties and working time provided that those provisions were not inconsistent with the terms of the statutory school teachers' pay and conditions document 1991. Under the Bill, however, employers will no longer be able to do this. The only provisions relating to duties and working time which will have effect as terms of contracts of employment will be those which have effect by virtue of a pay and conditions order.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady David, expressed concern in Committee. As they have acknowledged, I have written to try to explain the Government's position. Not all of the explanations have been found entirely satisfactory. For the benefit of noble Lords, that letter is in the Library.

The world has changed quite significantly since 1987. The advent of local management of schools means that whilst LEAs remain in the majority of cases the employers of teachers, the day-to-day management of schools is a matter for governing bodies. The Government believe that governing bodies should have the maximum possible flexibility to respond to their own needs and priorities within the budgets available to them. Among other things, that means taking their own decisions on the balance to be struck between numbers of staff, class sizes and non-contact time.

The question of class sizes was raised and it was asked why LEAs could not retain existing terms in teachers' contracts of service setting out a maximum class size. The size of classes has a direct relationship with a school's staff complement. When delegation is complete in 1993 for secondary schools, and 1994 for primary schools, all staffing complements will be determined not by the LEA but by the governing body of the school. That is the power which Parliament in its wisdom has expressly given to governing bodies. It would scarcely be reasonable to permit LEAs to override that power by striking local deals with their teaching forces. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said there were no difficulties. I believe that there have been difficulties. Several LEAs have attempted to include class size provisions in their schemes of local management. These have been judged unacceptable precisely because they would have pre-empted the power of governing bodies to determine the staff complement of their own schools.

The Government recognise that there may be some areas where LEAs could be able to make national or local agreements with teachers but which, as matters stand, might be construed as falling within the definition of "professional duties and working time". That is why Clause 5(3) gives the Secretary of State the power to make orders specifying that a given matter is or is not to be regarded as falling within the professional duties or working time of teachers for the purposes of the Bill.

As I said in Committee, the Secretary of State is willing to exercise this power where necessary and will give very careful consideration to representations from employers or others that particular matters should be covered in the order.

I understand that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are keen to know the Government's intentions with regard to the various issues listed in the amendment. I shall therefore turn to the detailed points that noble Lords have raised.

I turn to the Burgundy Book. Beginning with paragraph (a), I am happy to confirm the Government's view that matters currently covered in the Burgundy Book should continue to be so. But it would be inappropriate to make an order along the lines suggested in the amendment, since the majority of matters covered by the Burgundy Book clearly do not relate to duties or working time and therefore automatically fall outside the scope of the Bill. It is only those areas where there may be some doubt about the employers' right to include supplementary provisions in contracts which need be dealt with by an order under Clause 5(3). The list of local and national agreements relating to working time, maternity leave etc. referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is standard Burgundy Book territory. We have already made clear that the Burgundy Book would not be covered by the review body.

I turn to existing contracts of employment. Paragraph (b) (i) and (ii) and paragraph (c) of the amendment are not, I have to say, acceptable to the Government. The intention appears to be to allow existing local agreements in the areas of professional duties and working time to stand, and in addition to allow all future agreements relating to those agreements to be incorporated into contracts of employment. But that would inevitably reduce the scope for governing bodies to manage their schools effectively. It would cut right across the policy I have outlined both today and in Committee.

As to teacher appraisal, paragraph (b) (iii) is also inappropriate but for a different reason. As I made clear in Committee and in my letters to the noble Baronesses, Lady Seear and Lady David, the Government do not believe there to be any inconsistency between the drafting of the Bill and the intention behind the forthcoming appraisal regulations. LEAs will be able to put in place local arrangements for appraisal and require their teachers to behave in accordance with them, provided that such arrangements conform to the framework set out in the appraisal regulations and that the statutory pay and conditions document requires teachers—as it does now—to participate in arrangements made in accordance with those regulations. There is no need for an order under Clause 5(3) to address those issues.

I turn to race and sex discrimination. Paragraph (b) (iv) and (v) refer to race and sex discrimination. Again, we discussed these in Committee. I am pleased to confirm today that it is the Government's firm intention to make an order under Clause 5(3) enabling individual employers to place teachers under a duty not to act in a way which would amount to discrimination by their employer under existing race and sex discrimination legislation. That is clearly right. The Government are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for drawing the issue to their attention.

I refer to other conditions of employment. I confess to being a little confused by paragraph (d). The purpose seems to be to exclude from the scope of statutory conditions of employment all conditions of service matters other than professional duties and working time. But there is no need to make such a provision in a Clause 5(3) order. Such matters are already excluded from the Bill's scope by virtue of Clause 1(2) which defines the statutory conditions of employment of teachers as: their remuneration and such of their other conditions of employment as relate to their professional duties and working time". That means that LEAs will continue to be able to include in teachers' contracts of employment provisions relating to matters other than pay, duties and working time.

I should like to refer to one further point raised during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, commented on Clause 2(4) (a) which is about allowing government bodies etc. to exercise pay discretion. That is what they do now, and we look to the pay review body to ensure that that happens in future.

This debate has been an interesting one. I may not have covered everything. I will most certainly read what has been said and write to noble Lords.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he said that he had not covered everything. I do not believe that he has covered the point that I raised. I asked him specifically why, if variation was to be allowed, the clause was there, as it prohibited variation.

Lord Cavendish of Furness

My Lords, if I understand the question aright, it goes to the heart of the matter of local management of schools and different perceptions of how it will work. We believe that we have transferred that responsibility to schools, giving greater flexibility than otherwise would have been the case.

I do not know how far I have gone in convincing noble Lords that the issues raised with these amendments can be more appropriately dealt with through secondary rather than primary legislation. Even so, I feel that the amendment is inappropriate and I hope that it will be withdrawn.

Baroness Blackstone

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply to what is an extremely complex set of issues. At the heart of the problem is Clause 2(7). It still gives rise to problems and confusion and will continue to do so unless it is amended. This side of the House would like to reconsider the matter. We shall examine what the noble Lord said in reply to the proposal to list some exclusions under Clause 5 and decide whether to come back at Third Reading. I shall want to read his remarks in detail.

At the heart of the problem is the fact that local education authorities hold the contracts of employment of teachers and determine what is in them. Yet the Government are utterly committed—in a somewhat obsessional way, if I may say so—to giving governing bodies of schools even more control than they have at present over the way in which teachers are deployed in schools. I am entirely in favour of some devolution to schools and delegation of powers, but to concentrate on the opportunity given to governing bodies to manage the staff in schools to the complete exclusion of local authorities from managing the staff that they employ—in other words, school teachers—is likely to give rise to problems and difficulties. It is a pity that the Government appear to be so ideological on this point; they should look at the issue somewhat more pragmatically. For example, with reference to such matters as shortage subjects, I should have thought that it was desirable to allow local authorities to plan the deployment of teachers in their areas. I suspect that the route that the Government are taking will make that rather difficult.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting and recognising that local education authorities ought to be able to make some agreements with teachers about such matters as working time, special dispensations for leave, and so on. That seems to me to be in some conflict with what is said in Clause 2(7). I still believe that the problem is unresolved.

I do not consider that my questions in relation to the Burgundy Book have been properly answered. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would write to me before Third Reading and answer my questions so that we have further clarification. However, I am grateful to him for what he said about teacher appraisal. Those comments were helpful. I am also grateful for his comments with respect to race relations legislation.

In the light of what has been said and my response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and wait for Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.