House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Jun 1990

Mr. Pawsey : If that quotation is accurate, I think that that was a reference to some of the recent scenes at, for example, teacher conferences, but I shall deal with that point later.

The House will be aware that the reforms introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends will do a great deal to enhance the quality and standard of state education. We have taken on the great debate which was started by the Opposition. The difference between the two sides is that while they talked about it we have done something about it.

Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West) : I would not like my hon. Friend to think that the great debate on educational standards was started by the Opposition. It was started by the Council for Educational Standards.

Column 744

Mr. Pawsey : I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that correction. I was thinking of the speech by Lord Callaghan in 1976.

The national curriculum, local management of schools and teacher assessment are all added responsibilities with which the teacher force must grapple. It is worth reminding the House that, despite our good intentions, despite our reforms, despite all our legislation, all that will be as nothing if we do not enjoy the full-hearted support and co-operation of the nation's teachers.

I come now to the intervention by the hon. Member for Blackburn. I am interested to see that, so much notice does he take of our debates, he is reading a newspaper.

Teachers are not always their own best advocates. The recent teacher conferences have done little to enhance the esteem in which individual teachers or the reputation of the profession is held. The spectacle of, for example, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers being howled down by his own militant leftists was disgraceful. Teachers must understand that if they wish to be regarded as a profession and remunerated as a profession, they must act as a profession. The public do not always see them on a par with doctors or architects, because doctors and architects seldom demonstrate with marches, banners and loudspeakers. Other professionals prefer to pursue their grievances more responsibly. The Government are introducing educational reforms, and there is an argument that perhaps we are progressing more rapidly than some would like. We do not have to look far for the reasons for the reforms. We are anxious that improvements in schooling should be implemented with the least possible delay so that the maximum number of the nation's children can benefit and in the shortest time.

I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that some of the reforms have been so carefully wrapped in red tape both by the Department of Education and Science and, especially, by local education authorities that the package of reform itself is in danger of being lost. I doubt whether there is a need for so many forms which take up an increasing amount of teacher time. The number of leaflets, pamphlets and booklets produced by the bureaucrats has tended to swamp the profession. It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could reduce the weight of paper that is currently submerging the profession. I say that in the clear knowledge that he is already doing something towards that. I welcome the recommendations of the interim advisory committee and I note that the pay bill will be £733 million more than last year. Incidentally, that is £133 million more than the interim advisory committee recommendation. That figure must reflect the greatest credit on my right hon. Friend. He has persuaded the Treasury to cough up an extra £133 million and that substantial sum reflects the greatest credit on his persuasive abilities.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : Many of us had misgivings about the interim advisory committee three years ago. As my hon. Friend said, this may well be the last debate of this nature. However, does he agree that the interim advisory committee and the Government have done very well by the teaching profession over those three years?

Column 745

Mr. Pawsey : I would not quarrel for a moment with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. The interim advisory committee has done a splendid job and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right to compliment it.

It is worth remembering that, under the interim advisory committee's awards, the starting salary for a good honours graduate will be about £12,000 a year in inner London. The awards will provide increases of at least 20 per cent. for teachers who are not at the top of the main scale. Above all, the committee's awards will be worth on average almost 10.5 per cent. for almost all 60,000 head teachers and their deputies.

The hon. Member for Blackburn clearly and totally misunderstands the problem and he misunderstands the challenge that is being put to head teachers. He seeks to denigrate my right hon. Friend's comments about head teachers and their work. He is wrong to do that. The additional money for head teachers reflects the additional importance of a head teacher's job under the local management of schools proposal.

I support LMS, and I believe that funding should follow the pupil and be pupil led. Pupils of the same age should attract the same resources, irrespective of the school that they attend. Heads are taking on a greater management role. Although that represents something of a departure, it will be a significant step forward. Surely head teachers must know best what actually happens in their schools. They know who the conscientious teachers are and they know the day-to-day problems. They will be in the best position to do something about them. Therefore, it is only right that the additional management responsibility be recognised in the monthly pay packet. The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the considerable concern about teacher shortages. I hope that the interim advisory committee's latest recommendations help to make the teaching profession more attractive to graduates.

Incidentally, it is noteworthy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Universities Funding Council asking it to take note of a planned increase in initial teacher training for the next three years. It is just possible that critics will say that planning is one thing and attainment is something else, yet it is fair to remember that recruitment to teacher training courses rose by about 8 per cent. in 1989. Teacher shortages are not all that common. For example, in my county of Warwickshire, the number of teacher vacancies in January last year was 31. In January of this year it was 25. To get those two figures into perspective, that is out of a teacher force of 3,677.

I welcome the statutory instrument and I certainly hope that it will encourage entrance to the teaching profession.

11.4 pm

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : Before Conservative Members start shouting the Opposition down, it is necessary to put the record straight about the interim advisory committee. The Secretary of State always funks doing that. In 1987, his predecessor, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), found that normal trade union and employer negotiations were not working out to the Government's satisfaction. He then did something for which the Government were rightly condemned by the

Column 746

United Nations body, the International Labour Organisation. I have made it clear on many occasions that there would never have been an interim advisory committee if the Government had not refused to engage in proper negotiations with teachers. No other western Government have refused to negotiate with teachers, trade unions and employers.

The Government then hand-picked a committee. It is a farce. There is no negotiating of any kind. That committee was imposed on teachers, and, even though the committee was hand-picked, its recommendations were not accepted by the Government. The Secretary of State is pretending that its recommendations were accepted, but he knows that they were not. He is offering less money than the committee wanted him to offer. The figure is miles behind inflation. A figure of 13.5 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the 1987 position, and 14 per cent. in real terms would be required to return to the position that obtained in 1974.

When the Government withdrew teachers' negotiating rights--they have still not given them back--they committed an undemocratic action. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting at me can change that fact. Meanwhile, the situation has become so serious that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts recently published one of its most important reports on teacher shortages. A whole section of that report is missing because we could not get it approved by the majority of Tories on the Committee, who prevented our minority report from being released for nearly a year.

The present Chairman is the second one, because the first was hounded out by the Tory majority on the Committee. That is a fact. I nominated the present Chairman, and my colleagues seconded the motion--the Chairman is present ; he can tell the House--and they walked out of the room and did not return, even though we were to meet the Minister the next day. There are many things that we did not want in the report and many things that should be in the report but are not.

There is a growing crisis in the recruitment and training of teachers, and it must be taken into account. The problem is national, widespread, and inextricably linked with inadequate salary levels, bad conditions and scarce resources under this Government. [Interruption.] No amount of shouting will change that. I have heard the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends praising the head teachers, but they are talking rubbish. The speech made by Mr. Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, is the biggest roistering ever given to a Government by the head teachers, who for years have been the darlings of this Government, but who have now completely changed their opinions.

It was Mr. Hart who said that the teacher shortage was a "crisis", approaching a "catastrophe". Everybody that the Select Committee met used the word "crisis". Only one person said that there was no crisis--the senior official of the Department of Education and Science. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee are present and know that to be true, as do Conservative Members who have said the same thing themselves.

One of the three interim advisory committee reports that was praised stated :

"Any profession would be justifiably proud of the level of commitment on the part of teachers we have met during our school visits during all 3 years. However, commitment cannot by itself guarantee the success of the current reforms. It needs

Column 747

to be underpinned by far higher morale than we have found. Too many teachers feel that their efforts are under-valued by the Government, the employers, parents, and society generally."

In 1988, the interim advisory committee drew the link between proper professional levels of pay and problems of recruitment, stating :

"We are in no doubt that pay levels are the major factor." The Secretary of State praises the committee but he does not carry out the policies that his own hand-picked committee suggests to put teachers' pay levels right.

Surely it is now clear that teachers know that they are grossly underpaid. Let us have no nonsense about it. They know it and are miserable about it. They are overworked. They have to attend endless meetings, during their lunch hours and after school. They have to be at school earlier than ever before and have to spend endless more hours marking. Their morale is at its lowest ever ebb. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) can laugh and laugh-- [Laughter.] Indeed, he cannot stop laughing, but the reality is that--

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) rose --

Mr. Flannery : No, I shall not give way, because there is so little time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be called. Indeed, he has received a lot of fame in the past few days on College green-- [Interruption.] Well, not about education.

There are vacancies in schools throughout the country. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) must know that he was talking rubbish. What he said is not true. Where 20 people used to apply for a job in a school, now only one or two people may apply. The hon. Gentleman said that he likes local management of schools, but I must advise him that teachers are now learning what it is really like. In addition to the existing teacher shortages, local management of schools is adding to the problems. For example, one school in my constituency was £18,000 short last year and now has to sack either one or two teachers. Often the teachers who are sacked to save money are the most expensive teachers--those who have been teaching for a long time, and the very ones who are so urgently needed if we are to raise standards.

In addition to the teacher shortage that our Select Committee report sought to remedy, unless something is done, we will lose teachers because of LMS. I have heard the Secretary of State trying to explain that away. People who do not understand the issues might accept his explanations, but those of us who do understand know what rubbish the right hon. Gentleman is talking. The teachers are all aware of that--they have all sized him up--yet the right hon. Gentleman still follows his predecessor's footsteps, albeit fairly skilfully. They have done the same thing--they have made our education system into a terrible mess.

The position is worsening every day. Not only is morale lower than ever, but it is getting ever lower. All hon. Members know that that is what is happening, even if some of them try to pretend that it is not. The Government must recognise the growing damage that is being inflicted on our children's education. Let us be clear about this : it is not their children. One or two Tory Members may send their children to state schools, but--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose --

Column 748

Mr. Flannery : Be quiet, dear.

The Government are inflicting the damage on our children, not their children. They pay £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 for their kids to go to special schools, yet they take thousands off our children while talking a lot of nonsense. That is what goes on and they know it, and I am saying so. As the shortages worsen, the Government further exacerbate them by LMS.

The poll tax will hit education more than any other area. Education is one of the biggest spenders of what were local rates. Again, it is our children who will be hit. It will cause hundreds of redundancies. It is as though the Government have a death wish for state education which they will work out.

The Minister knows that the Government have imposed a cash limit of £6 million on the IAC's recommendations for this year. The offer is only 7.5 per cent., yet inflation is 9.4 per cent. The Government said that the offer was against a background of the falling rate of inflation. They say that they are coming to grips with it, but it is heading up to 10 per cent. If the offer was low because of a falling rate of inflation, as it is rising will they please give the teachers much more money? The full award would be only 9.3 per cent.--still below the rate of inflation. How can that solve our education problems?

Even to return to the 1988 position, the figure needs to be 13.8 per cent. We have costed this. We do not have to wait for the Government's costings. They are never correct. They do not tell the truth. To bring the figure back to Houghton levels, we need 40 per cent. on top of the present offer. That is how much teachers' salaries have been eroded.

Education cannot thrive in such an atmosphere. It is bound to go downhill. We cannot recruit, retain and motivate teachers with such an appalling lack of insight and in the atmosphere that dominates the Tory party. Despite all the evidence to the Select Committee, the Government continue to believe that teacher shortages are hitting only certain subjects and certain areas. That is untrue. There is a shortage in all areas and all subjects. All six teacher unions met last autumn and gave the lie to that claim, and our Front Bench survey bore them out.

If the crisis in the teaching profession is not to deepen further and endanger our children's education, this Government, who see that their children have plenty of money, must release the necessary funds to make teachers' salaries competitive with those of other professions. The numbers will fall and we will have to offer more money to attract more teachers. The interim advisory committee and the Select Committee both asked for more money. [Interruption.] Has the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) something wrong with his right hand over there--yon Sherwood forester? I call him a Sherwood forester, but he would tie Robin Hood up and hand him over to the sheriff.

There is no other way to advance the great cause of our children's education. I appeal to the Tory party : if the Lady is not for turning, for God's sake, is there any among you who will turn and give us a decent education system?

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. This is a very short debate, and short speeches are appropriate. I call Mr. John Marshall.

Column 749

11.18 pm

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : The London borough of Barnet, which I have the honour to represent and where my children are being educated in voluntarily aided schools, is consistently producing better examination results than any other local education authority in the country.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his initiatives--on refining the national curriculum, on pressing ahead with the introduction of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools--which will introduce variety, choice and flexibility into the education system--and on achieving greater flexibility in teachers' pay. Although I welcome that latter development, I should like the Minister to deal briefly in his winding-up speech with the need for more regional variations in teachers' pay. The Nationwide Anglia survey of house prices for the first quarter of the year shows that the average price of a terraced house in London was £88,470, and the average price of a semi-detached house £100,450. In Yorkshire and Humberside, the average price of a semi was £50,810, and in the northern region it was £49,590.

A teacher in the north of England can expect to obtain a mortgage of perhaps £30,000 ; a teacher in London has not a hope in hell with a mortgage that size. The average after-tax cost of a £30,000 mortgage is £327 per month, while that of a mortgage of £55,000--which is probably typical for London--is £669 per month, or an extra £85 per week. I ask Ministers to bear that in mind in future : unless regional pay is increased, a new north-south divide will develop. Teachers in the south-east will sell their London homes, making a large capital gain, and move to the north in the knowledge that they can enjoy lower mortgages and a higher standard of life.

We need still more flexibility. My right hon. Friend was educated at St. Andrews university, where the emphasis on market economics was particularly strong. Let me tell him that a shortage of teachers of French, maths and science is no reason to pay more to teachers of Latin or social studies. If teachers of "shortage subjects" are not paid more, the entire curriculum will be put at risk.

The status of the profession is, I feel, in the hands of the profession itself. No one has more faith in the profession as a whole than I have ; a small minority, however, is putting the profession's reputation in jeopardy. A few weeks ago, I received a letter from my children's head teacher which said that because of action by the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers the children would receive no schooling in two days' time. That is disgraceful. It merely aggravates the parents--especially mothers--who are inconvenienced. It interferes irresponsibly with children's education, and gravely damages the image of the profession. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others mentioned morale. In one section of the profession, however, morale is extremely high : I refer to grant-maintained schools. My right hon. Friend will remember paying a visit to Hendon school, the first grant-maintained school in London. Towards the end of that visit, a teacher approached him and said, "I am a member of the Labour party." I held my breath, wondering what would happen next. The teacher went on, "The best thing that has happened to this school has been becoming grant maintained."

Column 750

Tonight we have heard the Opposition commit themselves to doing away with grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and the private sector. What would that do for morale in the teaching profession? It would plummet to a new low. But that is what the Labour party stands for : it would do nothing for the education of our children, and nothing for morale in the teaching profession. Its proposed measures would be as productive as the abolition of the grammar schools. The grammar schools, we were told, would be abolished over Lord Wilson's dead body--and we all know what happened to them.

11.24 pm

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro) : The background to the debate is the present position in our schools. Some Conservative Members have referred to the professionals in the schools-- [Interruption.] --not to mention the professionals in the Press Gallery. I have hardly started, but they are already falling apart up there.

I understand why some Conservative Members should discuss the experience of head teachers and in that context it is important to consider the letters that I received last year from head teachers in my constituency--a rural one with many small schools. Those letters referred to the distress that head teachers experienced in implementing the Government's reforms, and coping with lowered staff morale as well as with their loss of morale because of a feeling of lost status.

Occasionally a series of letters is sent as part of an orchestrated campaign to argue a particular case--often exaggerated to lend it more strength. I therefore visited each school in my constitutency to discover whether the possibility of resignations was real and to discuss the problems experienced.

Conservative Members are not prepared to accept that many teachers--not all --are suffering from low morale. A number of head teachers in my constituency have resigned citing pressure and low morale as their reasons. The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has highlighted similar problems affecting the retention and recruitment of teachers. No matter how hard Conservative Members argue that that is not so, it is the reality to which the debate must be addressed. Whether the Government's response has been adequate can be judged by how well they resolve those problems. We must ensure that they are solved so that our children receive a proper standard of education and we have enough teachers in the future to provide an adequate level of education.

Whatever criticisms Conservative Members may make of the teaching profession, it is to them that we entrust the education of our children. It is fundamental therefore to restore to them their negotiating rights. Tonight the Secretary of State has again referred to his intention to restore those rights--not before time, although the blame for that cannot be laid directly at his door. However, on 5 December when the current system for determining pay was extended by a further 12 months the Secretary of State said :

"It is necessary for the present arrangements to be in place for one more year."--[ Official Report, 5 December 1989 ; Vol. 163, c. 271.]

Although he has expressed his intention to replace the arrangements, it is rumoured that another extension order will be introduced because a Bill introduced in the next Queen's Speech might not be enacted by 31 March 1991.

Column 751

Can he guarantee that that Bill will be enacted in time to ensure that there will be no repetition of this debate? In the face of international law and the expressed Government intentions, will such a Bill be enacted or are the Government already preparing for a repetition of this debate? I remind the House that the Select Committee said that teachers' negotiating rights should be restored as soon as possible and that new arrangements for determining teachers' pay and conditions of service should be devised to allow the 1987 Act to expire in March 1991 at the latest. The extension of the system that we have already had is deplorable.

It is not true that the Government are implementing the interim advisory committee recommendations because on 1 February the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced that the Government proposed to accept the recommendations but that the introduction of the changes would be phased up to 1 January 1991. As a result, teachers will get increases that are lower than the rate of inflation. There is no point in looking at the result when in the process of reaching that result teachers will be worse off. That is in the face of recruitment, retention, and teacher supply problems. The interim advisory committee recommended not a phased increase but an immediate increase of 8.3 per cent. The Select Committee also said that the Government should implement the interim advisory committee recommendations in full and without delay. The Government are not doing that and that is directly increasing the problems in our schools.

The Government are not properly funding the recommendations. The IAC was given a remit of £600 million for its recommended pay increases. Its recommendation was for £733 million but, by delaying the increase, the Government will have to spend only £621 million this year. However, revenue support to local authorities was worked out on the basis of a pay award costing £600 million and the support grant settlement is not being revised. Once again, local authorities are being given a certain amount of money to cover a pay award ultimately imposed by the Government but are not being given the resources to pay for it. That is outrageous, especially when local authorities are blamed by Ministers for not being able to stay within Government targets.

Mr. Barry Porter (Wirral, South) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Taylor : I shall give way in a moment, but before doing so it might be useful to reflect on what the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in a written answer to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) :

"The additional cost in 1990-91 of implementing the IAC's recommendations in the way I have proposed would be £620 million in England and Wales compared with the financial constraint set out in the IAC's remit of £600 million. The difference should not be an appreciable burden for local authorities given the scope that exists for savings across their services."--[ Official Report, 7 March 1990 ; Vol. 168, c. 627. ]

That is ridiculous. All hon. Members know about the problems that schools have in finding the resources to introduce the national curriculum, local management of schools and all the other matters. I defy the Minister to find extra savings. He cannot do it because the whole system is already built on the basis of savings by local government. The Government are not

Column 752

providing funding for the additional incentives recommended in the interim advisory committee report, such as provision for additional flexibility to increase pay, commensurate enhancements and ranges of pay points.

The Government have allowed local authorities no cash to achieve those things and that is completely unacceptable if the Government genuinely believe in what the interim advisory committee is arguing to achieve. Of course, the Government do not genuinely believe in what the IAC seeks to achieve. Teachers will be worse off under the proposals. Local authorities do not have the money to make the system work and once again the Government have managed to achieve a real cut in teachers' pay.

Mr. Barry Porter : Just so that the House may judge the quality of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, can he tell us what percentage of the teaching population in his constituency has resigned over the past year?

Mr. Taylor : I do not have those figures, and nor do the Government. However, not only have I received letters from teachers whom I do not know, saying that they are resigning, but friends of mine have resigned from local authority teaching. These are not mythical creatures. These are real teachers and real professionals who have given up because they do not have the support that they believe they should have from the Government.

11.35 pm

Mr. Derek Fatchett (Leeds, Central) : The backcloth to this debate is the same as that of all our education debates--the increasing crisis in our education system. It is known to all parents and teachers, and only Tory Members fail to recognise it. As the Secretary of State's speech showed, Ministers are complacent about the growing problems in our schools. If the Secretary of State wants chapter and verse for that, he has no better source than the evidence prepared for, and submitted by, the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, chaired by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton). That report contains detailed analyses of the teacher shortages, and what that means for the quality of education. Those problems are growing.

The Secretary of State will say that the Government have taken action, such as introducing bursaries for the shortage subjects. However, as the Secretary of State and the Minister of State know, even in the bursary subjects, the Government are failing to reach their target figures for recruitment. For example, in its figures to the Select Committee, the Department predicted that there would be a shortfall of nearly 30 per cent. in the number of technology teachers by the year 1995, yet this year, on the latest available figures for the number of teachers taking up the technology bursary, there is a shortfall on the Government's recruitment targets of nearly 25 per cent. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) should not shake his head, because those figures come from the Department.

The shortfall in teacher supply is getting even more acute, and on top of that, as the Select Committee report showed clearly, there is a collapse in teacher morale, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor). It was, almost incidentally, recognised by one or two Tory Members. That collapse in morale is not surprising. The Government have gone ahead with a whole range of reforms--wrapped in red tape, according

Column 753

to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey)-- that were never based on co-operation and consultation with teachers. They went against the grain of teacher professionalism and only now is the Secretary of State realising that he needs teacher support.

The Government have introduced the local management of schools. Every one of those schemes that the Secretary of State now criticises, he sanctioned. Each one of them is producing problems in schools. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough said, we hear stories of teacher redundancies, and threatened teacher redundancies in so many schools.

The order will impose a cut in the living standard of teachers. The Government are presiding over a rate of inflation of 9.4 per cent., and are imposing on teachers a pay increase of 2 per cent. less than that. In other words, in their attempt to deal with the problem of falling morale, the Government are imposing on teachers a further 2 per cent. cut in their living standards. Furthermore, the Government have failed yet again to provide local education authorities with the money to fund the pay increase. Yet again, the Government will force local education authorities to make cuts in education services. Capped authorities will be forced to make cuts and to make teachers redundant. In authorities such as Barnsley and Calderdale the increase in spending is below the rate of inflation, yet the Secretary of State is prepared to take risks with children's education and see teachers made redundant.

The order is inadequate to deal with the problems that are faced by teachers and the education service generally. For that reason, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in voting against it. 11.40 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold) : The debate should really have been about the interim advisory committee's report, which includes some extremely good suggestions and recommendations about teachers' pay. Much of this has been misrepresented by Opposition Members. The majority of rational people outside this place, having read what has been recommended and what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, will say that everything that has been suggested is excellent and that the Government were right to accept it.

It was predictable that we would have much rhetoric from Opposition Members. There has been a great deal of gloom and doom and much talking up of a situation within our schools that does not need to be talked about in that way. It does not need to be discussed time and again. Our reforms are working excellently in the schools and we shall be seeing the results, which will undoubtedly benefit our children.

I am concerned by some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I understand that the Labour party's policy review states that any changes made would be as resources allow. Yet tonight we have heard from the hon. Gentleman that any long-distant Labour Administration would give a completely open-ended commitment to the outcome of any sort of teacher negotiations or whatever mechanism that Government had for settling or negotiating teachers' pay. That does not

Column 754

sit well for the taxpayer in future. Nor does it sit well with remarks that have been made by other members of the Opposition Front Bench.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech. He rightly supported the IAC's report and rightly said also that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always includes in his remarks the admiration and gratitude that the Government have for the dedicated teaching force throughout the country. We believe that the work that it is doing to implement our reforms will add enormously to the value of education for our children. I can tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has been working hard to reduce the amount of paper work.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) referred to the difficulties that are posed by regional variations. The IAC has drawn attention to the matter in its report. There are admirable flexibilities, but I hope that the matter will be further examined in any future negotiations.

It is right to say that the talk about teacher shortages is regional and could become worse. I tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that only this morning the Labour leader of the Association of County Councils told us that there were no teacher shortages in his county of Nottinghamshire. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's rather sweeping remarks? It is extremely important to get the facts right.

We need less rhetoric and much more support for our teaching force throughout the country. We need more support from all who talk about education in this country. Above all, we need support for the order, so that we can implement the good increases and the changes and flexibility that the interim advisory committee has given us, to ensure that teachers feel rewarded--as I am sure they will. Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 264, Noes 183.

Division No.226] [at 11.44 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Aitken, Jonathan

Alexander, Richard

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Ashby, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Atkins, Robert

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Batiste, Spencer

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Body, Sir Richard

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Boswell, Tim

Bottomley, Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Bowis, John

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Buck, Sir Antony

Budgen, Nicholas

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Carttiss, Michael

Cash, William

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Churchill, Mr

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Colvin, Michael

Conway, Derek

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Next Section

Home Page