---

Column 23

Moss, Malcolm

Mudd, David

Neale, Gerrard

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Page, Richard

Patnick, Irvine

Pawsey, James

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Price, Sir David

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Rhodes James, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Roe, Mrs Marion

Rooker, Jeff

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Rost, Peter

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shersby, Michael

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Spearing, Nigel

Speller, Tony

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Squire, Robin

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Summerson, Hugo

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tredinnick, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wheeler, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Mr. Tom Sackville.

NOES

Ashton, Joe

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Harry

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Douglas, Dick

Galloway, George

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Lambie, David

McAllion, John

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Meale, Alan

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Mullin, Chris

Nellist, Dave

Patchett, Terry

Redmond, Martin

Salmond, Alex

Skinner, Dennis

Vaz, Keith

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Noes :

Mrs. Margaret Ewing and

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr. Dick Douglas be suspended from the service of the House. Mr. Speaker : I have to direct the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) to withdraw, in compliance with the order that the House has just made.

The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.

---

Column 24

3.44 pm

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on new negotiating machinery for school teachers' pay and conditions.

I wrote to the local authority employers and the teacher unions on 26 April setting out proposals for new permanent pay negotiating machinery for settling the pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales. Over the past two months I have engaged in full and careful consultations on the basis of those proposals. I am now able to announce the Government's decisions about future machinery for determining the pay and conditions of school teachers. I intend at the earliest opportunity to bring forward to the House a Bill to give effect to these decisions.

Different and incompatible views on the proposals were expressed during the consultations. Most urged on us a restoration of negotiating rights for teachers ; others preferred independent review, but they were not willing to agree the establishment of a permanent body similar to the present Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions. It is clear that we are far from a consensus in favour of independent review on a basis that would be acceptable.

Accordingly, we intend to provide for free negotiations between employers and teachers under an independent chairman. The Government will not be a party to those negotiations. There will be no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations. The employers will know the aggregate external finance that the Government are ready to make available for local authority expenditure as a whole and will consider what they can afford in the light of that. There will be a time limit on the negotiations.

If the negotiators agree recommendations before the time limit, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation. If the time limit passes without agreement, however, the negotiations will come to an end. The Government will seek recommendations instead from an independent advisory committee, broadly similar to the present interim advisory committee. This will not be arbitration. The Government will set the body a clear and specific remit. Again, it will fall to the Secretary of State to consider implementation. I hope that it will normally be possible to accept the recommendations that are put to us, but we have also to provide for circumstances in which that is not the case. If the Government are unhappy with aspects of negotiated recommendations on pay and conditions they will be able to refer these issues back to the negotiators, giving their reasons. If agreement does not result from this process, however, the Government will need to be able to resolve the deadlock. We shall provide for that through a power for the Government to substitute their own provisions on matters referred back, subject to negative resolution of each House of Parliament. The Government would intend not normally to refer back recommendations on cost grounds if the overall cost was within the inter- quartile range of private sector settlements for non-manual employees.

Within the negotiating body there will be a separate sub-committee to deal with heads and deputies. Responsibility for initiating proposals for changes in pay and conditions of heads and deputies will rest with the sub- committee. The sub-committee's recommendations

---

Column 25

will come to me for consideration unless both sides of the main committee agree to refer them back to the sub-committee, and subsequently to change them. The precise machinery for this and other, more detailed, features of our proposals are explained in the paper placed today in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House. I recognise that some employers--be they local education authorities or the governors of grant-maintained schools--may judge that they could better respond to local needs and circumstances if they settled the pay and conditions of their teachers themselves. As envisaged in the consultation document, LEAs will have the opportunity to apply to me to opt out of the national provisions governing pay and conditions, on the basis that they are able to put in place satisfactory arrangements of their own. Grant-maintained schools, too, will be able to opt out of the national provisions.

Teachers are due a review of their pay to take effect next April. Given the need for legislation to establish the new negotiating arrangements, it would not be possible to deal with this settlement under the new arrangements, and that was accepted by all those whom I have been consulting. None supported the option of dealing with the settlement retrospectively through the new machinery once it is statutorily in place. There was insufficient agreement about the possibility of running the new machinery on a voluntary, shadow basis in advance of legislation. I have concluded, therefore, that I should seek the approval of the House later in the year to extend the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 for a further, and final, year, and to invite the interim advisory committee to make recommendations to me for a settlement to cover the year April 1991 to March 1992. The first settlement decided in the new machinery would be that to take effect from April 1992.

The arrangements which I have outlined offer full and fair opportunities for negotiations between teachers and their employers, and a means to resolve deadlock if the negotiators cannot agree. They acknowledge the interests of employers, teachers and Government in the determination of teachers' pay. They afford a basis for the peaceful resolution of questions of pay and conditions, and their adaptation to the changes which face our schools in the 1990s.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn) : Is the Secretary of State aware that the removal of negotiating rights from teachers in 1986 and the continued delay in re-establishing them has in itself been gravely damaging to teachers' motivation and self-respect, and that that is one reason why our schools face greater problems today than at any time in living memory? Will he confirm that by his statement the first negotiated settlement cannot take place until 1992, six years after the last one? Will he give more detail of the veto that he intends to retain?

Will the clear and specific remit to the new advisory committee include cash limits set without reference to the negotiations, notwithstanding the fact that in his statement the right hon. Gentleman said guardedly that there would be

"no pre-set financial limit on the negotiations"?

Does that undertaking cover the exercise of his veto? Given the substantial powers of veto which the right hon. Gentleman is taking unto himself, does he understand the strong case for this to be subject to the affirmative procedure, not to the negative resolution procedure?

---