HL Deb 22 July 1991 vol 531 cc616-23

12.28 a.m.

Read a third time.

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

Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 1: Page 5, line 34, after ("Act") insert ("and subject to subsection (3A) below").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I must preface my remarks on the amendment by saying that this has not been the happiest of days in your Lordships' House. For those of us who seek to defend the House as a serious revising chamber, the experience of the past eight to nine hours will take a good deal of explaining away. I for one regard it as absurd that I should be moving an amendment to an important Bill at this time of night. It is all very well for the Government to refer to a Citizen's Charter when something so significant for our citizens—namely, education—cannot be debated properly in your Lordships' House. I make those remarks for the record.

An important matter which has occupied us at some length throughout the proceedings on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill has been local flexibility. There seems to have been a certain amount of confusion throughout the proceedings on the Bill. I do not believe that there is any confusion of logic or intention. I believe that the Government have no desire to bring to the centre what ought to be left locally and flexible. On our side we have no desire to see that happen. The real question is whether the Bill achieves what is sensible; namely, that only such matters are dealt with centrally as need to be for the purposes of the Bill.

In considering local flexibility, we come to that marvellous but not fictitious document, the Burgundy Book. It is essentially a volume which is almost the embodiment of local flexibility. Our concern throughout has been whether the Bill as it stands really produces as much flexibility as already exists. I find it hard to believe that the Government would wish to have less flexibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, said on Report: 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". He went on to say: It is only those areas where there may be some doubt about the employers' right to include supplementary provisions in contracts which need to be dealt with by an order under Clause 5(3)".—[Official Report, 15/7/91; col.50.] We have tabled these amendments because even though the noble Lord made his point, some of us were rather puzzled as to whether, nonetheless, the conditions to which he referred were actually met.

In particular, we are concerned about certain obvious matters in the Burgundy Book. I shall refer to only two of them. First, there is the leave for jury service and other public service which is dealt with in paragraph 9.4, and, secondly, the maternity leave under the teachers' maternity scheme which is dealt with in paragraph 9.2 of the document. We want to be clear that these matters are still left for local flexibility.

The second point of concern is one which was raised '1y the noble Baroness (at col. 48 of Hansard) on the same date. It was also mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. The noble Baroness asked: 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?". The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. It is to write on the face of the Bill two provisions: first, to make it absolutely clear that nothing except what has to be centralised will be centralised; and, secondly, to ensure that conditions of service. in so far as they are agreed at the local level and are, so to speak, Burgundy Book material, do not run foul of the Bill when it becomes enacted and therefore do not constrain the local flexibility which, in my view, the Government would want to see in any event. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.

12.30 a.m.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I should first like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about the time at which this important Bill is receiving its Third Reading. He explained the purpose of the amendment. Therefore, at this time of night there is no need for me to do more than say that I support it.

Since we last discussed the matter, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, has sent a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, of which he was kind enough to send me a copy. In that letter the noble Lord gave certain assurances that matters which could be held to be non-statutory conditions of employment would continue to be left to employers and employees to determine. I understood that to be the burden of the letter. I should have liked to see that further assurance included in the Bill. Failing that, I am glad that discussion of the amendment provides the opportunity for the contents of the noble Lord's letter to be recorded in the Official Report.

The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, makes a serious point. I hope that my comments will bring our thinking closer together. As the noble Lord explained, the Burgundy Book sets out various collective agreements concluded between the local authority employers and representatives of the five teacher associations. He wishes to be sure that the employers of teachers—which include not only local education authorities but the governors of aided schools and a growing number of governing bodies of grant-maintained schools—will still be able to conclude binding agreements with their teachers in the areas which at present comprise the contents of the Burgundy Book, and import these agreements into teachers' contracts of employment.

However, I believe that to use an order-making power as sweepingly as this amendment requires is to go too far. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to make an order which would specify all the present collective agreements relating to professional duties and working time set out in the Burgundy Book as all being conditions of employment that would fall within, and only within, the discretion of LEAs to decide whether they should be part of teachers' contracts of employment.

There are two problems with these amendments. The first is that they will not work. The most recent edition of the Burgundy Book appeared in 1985. Since then it has effectively been frozen. Six years and several Education Acts later, some of its contents are plainly out of date. I am sure that the employers and the teachers' associations themselves recognise that the Burgundy Book needs considerable revision. Paragraph 11, for example, covers the area of the teachers' day, duties and holiday entitlement, and states that: there are no existing national collective agreements on these matters beyond that affecting the school midday break". To import that particular paragraph into the contracts of teachers—which could be the ultimate effect of this amendment—would clearly lead to a very odd result. Time has moved on and we are no longer in that situation.

The second difficulty is that the Burgundy Book has been overtaken by recent legislation and needs thorough revision for that reason too. Parts of the Burgundy Book are simply inconsistent with provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. For example, the powers which governing bodies now have under the Education Reform Act to take decisions about the appointment and dismissal of staff, and their duty to draw up disciplinary and grievance procedures for their staff, could well be at odds with collective agreements in these areas. Nor is it a sufficient answer to say that the second part of the second amendment provides for the revision of existing collective agreements. That would require the Secretary of State, in effect, to sign a blank cheque on behalf of governing bodies. These amendments could lead to serious conflict over powers and duties explicitly transferred to the local managers of schools, and therefore would be undoing what is already provided for in the Education Reform Act passed fewer than four years ago.

I have been critical but I understand the purpose underlying the amendment. The noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Rochester, have made it clear. I do not believe that the reasons which the noble Lords have given are entirely misplaced. Much of the Burgundy Book is concerned with matters which are plainly neither professional duties nor in working time. If they could be judged to relate to duties in working time, they do so only marginally. I believe that they would therefore automatically remain matters for employers—that is to say, in most cases the local education authorities—and employees, their teachers, to decide.

The Government also accept that there may be matters which might be interpreted as statutory conditions of employment and would therefore no longer be matters which could be dealt with through national agreements. But if that is what the employers and employees want, they should continue to be dealt with in that way.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston asked me a point blank question about jury service and maternity leave. On this side of the House, the Government would be minded to leave precisely those two areas within the Burgundy Book via a Clause 5(3) order.

It is because of this line of thought which I am developing that my noble friend Lord Cavendish said, when we were debating this at previous stages of the Bill, that under Clause 5(3) the Secretary of State would be prepared in principle to make an order providing for some matters to be Burgundy Book matters for LEAs and teachers to decide. They would not therefore come within the scope of the review body.

However, I believe it would need careful thought and not, if I may be forgiven for saying so, the rather sweeping requirements which these amendments, which we are taking at Third Reading, would put on the face of the Bill if we were to agree with them. I hope that assurance shows the Government recognise that there are many aspects of the employer-employee relationship which can be determined by the kind of process which brought the Burgunday Book into existence. As they stand, the amendments would be difficult to accept and I hope I have said enough to assure the noble Lords that they could safely be withdrawn.

Lord Peston

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his reply. I reiterate my point that I hope that there is nothing between us on the outcome we should like to see. I am well aware of the deficiencies of the amendment. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, it is difficult within the context of the Bill to find a suitable amendment that would preserve the degree of local flexibility that one wants. I am willing to accept the Government's assurances, and all I can say is that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

One's concern, as I said and as I will repeat when we come to the next stage of our proceedings, is that whatever we think about the Bill, the teachers' pay procedures must work. That is vital from now on. However, we do not want all this to get in the way of matters that should not concern the review body and that should be left to local initiatives and local flexibilities.

Before I withdraw the amendment, I repeat that we shall have to wait and see. I do not quite understand how, if matters do not work out, the Government will get themselves out of the rather centralised position in which they are. Having made those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]

12.45 a.m.

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

At this late hour, I briefly thank noble Lords for the debates that we have had on the Bill. Although we have not made changes to it, we have quarried out a certain amount of useful detail.

On the previous amendment, in the light of the noble Lord's concluding remarks, it might be useful to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that I think the Department of Education and Science will certainly want to talk to employers about what Clause 5(3) orders will cover and what are going to remain in the Burgundy Book. The noble Lord asked how we were going to see the way forward. I hope there will be some consultation about this. I felt I should like to say that because the noble Lord has been eminently reasonable in moving the amendment.

It is fair to say it has been quite a long haul since the Burnham arrangements came to an end. Finding the right permanent pay machinery which balances the legitimate interests of teachers, employers and the Government has not been easy. I like to think that the search has at last had a considerable amount of success.

The response to the offer of having a review body has been very heartening. Five out of six teacher unions have said that they support the principles enshrined in the Bill that we have been considering. The reaction of individual teachers has been positive, and although some will want to reserve judgment, they will do so because they want to see the recommendations that the review body will produce and the reaction which the Government are going to give. But it is clear that the great majority of teachers have welcomed in principle the Government's offer of professional recognition through review body status in return for acceptance and recognition of their professional responsibilities as the teachers of the nation's children. So we must look to the future.

I should just like to say a word of tribute to the Interim Advisory Committee, of which my noble friend Lady Denton was a distinguished member. Their achievements over the past four years in developing a more progressive and flexible salary structure, with the emphasis on rewarding achievement and responsibility, provide an excellent base on which I hope the review body will build.

We have had a great deal of debate on the powers and duties of the review body. The essential point is that the arrangements proposed will put the body on all-fours with existing review bodies: the same absence of prior constraints; the same freedom to make recommendations; the same commitment by the Government with respect to implementation. But at the end of the day I hope we see eye to eye—I think we do—that the government of the day must take decisions and have the right to have the final word. What is important in this context is whether the basic framework for the operation of the review body is sound. I like to think that in all essentials, by following the established and successful model of the existing review bodies, the arrangements in this Bill are in the right direction.

Before I sit down, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for the part they have played in considering the Bill. If I may say so, both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are very knowledgeable and formidable opponents, and I am genuinely grateful to them for what they have done on this Bill. I should also like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Rochester and Lord Ritchie of Dundee, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, bringing particular knowledge not only of education but also of training matters, which always enhances our study of these education Bills The noble Lord had the benefit of interventions from his noble friend Baroness Seear and from the Benches opposite of the noble Baroness, Lady David, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord. Houghton, and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, all of whom have specialised knowledge of education, and I recognise that. We also had intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, from the other Benches.

Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cavendish for doing a great deal to pilot this Bill through, and my noble friends Lord Renton, Lady Cumberlege, Lord Pearson, Lady Denton and indeed Lady Young for the much needed support which they have given me and my noble friend Lord Cavendish.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belsiead).

Lord Peston

My Lords, it is my pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his kind remarks.

This was not a very long Bill but we have worked hard at it. We moved several amendments which we took very seriously and which we think would have improved the Bill. I shall not bore your Lordships by rehearsing all of them, but we considered the amendment requiring there to be clear and compelling reasons if the review body's recommendations were to be rejected to be extremely important. We believed that switching to the affirmative procedure would have been useful. We considered other amendments which I shall not go into important. The apparent anomaly concerning the sixth form colleges may lead the Government to reflect that they ought to have accepted an amendment in the form we proposed or to have put one forward themselves. I should also have liked more on the face of the Bill on the question of guidance. To introduce an area of controversy, my views on grant-maintained schools remain unchanged.

Having said that, I remarked at Report stage that from now on it is of overwhelming importance that teachers should have confidence in what the review body does, not for the sake of the teachers but because it is education which matters. If teachers feel that they receive a raw deal from this body, our children will then receive a raw deal. Even though we favour a review body we are not keen on this one. We should have preferred a slightly different one. That is now a bygone. What now matters is that the review body must be made to work. I hope that it will work.

It is my pleasure to join with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in thanking noble Lords. In congratulating them I may say that this is one occasion on which I cannot remember a single speech which did not make a genuine contribution to our deliberations. I cannot recall shuddering at any point during the course of our debates.

I must thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who to my deep regret is not with us, and my noble friend Lady David. The noble Lords, Lord Ritchie and Lord Rochester, made important contributions. I shall not embarrass everybody, but I was very pleased by the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Denton and Lady Cumberlege. I look forward to their being persuaded to take further part in such deliberations. Lastly, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for the courteous and helpful way in which he has endeavoured to deal with our worries and, similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We have dealt with the Bill as best we can and I wish very much to associate myself with the supportive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.

Lord Rochester

My Lords, on these Benches our attitude to the Bill as it leaves this House is much the same as when it first came to us. At both Committee and Report stages I moved or supported a number of amendments. It is therefore all the more important that I should reiterate that we fully support the principle underlying the Bill, namely, that the pay and other statutory employment conditions of school teachers in England and Wales should in future be determined by an independent review body.

As I said at Second Reading, the main reason for our support is that the last thing that is now needed is further delay and confusion. By passing the Bill now we can help to restore the morale of school teachers by correcting the way in which they feel they have been treated in recent years.

Having said that, we retain some reservations about the composition and powers of the proposed review body and other matters. On a number of points we have sought unsuccessfully to persuade the Government that assurances given by Ministers in another place and here should find expression on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has mentioned some of them. At this time of night I shall not weary the House by mentioning others. He mentioned particularly the question of how sixth form college teachers should be treated. For our part, we consider that, if the pay and other employment conditions of teachers in primary, secondary and grant-maintained schools are to be determined by a statutory review body, sixth form college teachers should be dealt with in the same way.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall that on Second Reading I suggested that the same principle should be extended to teachers in higher and further education. I was unable to pursue that point in subsequent debates because those teachers do not come within the ambit of the Bill.

At this point I am obliged to observe the convention of the House that Third Reading should not be used as an occasion to lament lost opportunities. All I can do is to say to the Government as sincerely and objectively as I can that, if they persist in the view that an independent review body is appropriate for school teachers but not for teachers in other sectors of education, they may in the long term come to regret it.

There are one or two other matters that continue to concern us, but I shall not detail them further now. Despite the continuing reservations to which I have referred, I should reiterate that we nonetheless support the Bill's underlying principle.

In conclusion, I should like to associate my noble friends with what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said about the excellent work that has been done during the past few years by the Interim Advisory Committee. In that connection I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Denton, in her place. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Cavendish, for the unfailing courtesy, patience and good humour that they have shown in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House. From these Benches, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in particular for the contributions that they have made during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.

On Question, Bill passed.