| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Allason : Is the hon. Gentleman giving the commitment that any future Labour Government would accept the full recommendations of the interim advisory committee whatever the cost to the Exchequer?
Column 255
Mr. Fatchett : I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the argument. I was saying that there will not be an interim advisory committee in the future--that much we do know. There will be different machinery. I also said--I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take this point on board--that there is an inconsistency in that, according to the Government, the standard spending assessments are so just that local government can pay an increase in the interquartile range. The interim advisory committee's recommendations fall exactly within the interquartile range and were deliberately made to do so.My argument is that the interim advisory committee carried out its remit, but, at a later stage and with a stroke of a pen, the Government changed the way in which that increase will be implemented. That is our argument. This is an important matter for teachers and a worrying backcloth for them. That is why we shall vote against the order.
Column 257
10.57 pmMr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I admit to being beguiled by the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) because it reminded me of being slapped in the face by one of the perfumed, warm towels that are handed out by air hostesses. I thought that he was going to go all the way and agree with the Government, but he ended by saying that he would oppose the order on what seemed entirely spurious grounds. Although he brushed aside an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the cost of Labour's proposals, my hon. Friend asked an extremely pertinent and germane question.
Although the hon. Gentleman opposes the phasing of the increase, it would be interesting to calculate the relative loss to individual teachers, especially those on the middle and upper scales, of his Front Bench's proposals to tax them at penal levels against the admitted but slight loss of phasing the increase. It was wrong and disingenuous of the hon. Gentleman to brush aside that important intervention about the penal tax rates that would be imposed on teachers by a putative Labour Government.
Mr. Steinberg : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walden : I have hardly started. Let me continue for a while. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State struck the right note in introducing the order. These considerable increases in pay for teachers are balanced, rightly, by greater performance requirements. That seems the essential philosophy for the future. Admittedly, it has taken some time for us to work towards the increases. I have made no secret of my view that we should go further, in terms of rewards for teachers, stricter requirements and what I would call quality control for teachers.
I should like to draw attention to a facet of this discussion which is shied away from too often in public--the sex of teachers. It seems entirely abnormal that about 90 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 70 or 75 per cent. of all teachers are of the female sex. However fashionable and vulgar views one may adopt on this subject--politically correct, they call it in America--children have a right to expect a reasonable balance between the sexes in the classroom. For goodness sake, families consist of a mixture of men and women. Why should not schools have a better balance?
The sex of teachers is related to the subject that we are discussing because teaching has become a female-dominated profession.
Mr. Hawkins : It is regarded as a second income.
Mr. Walden : The profession is dominated by women partly because, as my hon. Friend says, it is often treated as not a serious profession but a second income by women who statistically have the lowest attainments in A levels.
Mrs. Dunwoody : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walden : That is why teaching has become a semi-pauperised and proletarianised profession. At this point, out of all gallantry, I must give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Dunwoody : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that somewhat elephantine response. Is it the hon. Gentleman's
Column 258
view that what is important is not that people should have the best teachers but that they should have those who are defined by gender? Was he brought up in the state system, which is full of truly excellent teachers of either sex? Does he send his own children to state schools, or does he send them only to places where there is sex discrimination and, therefore, only men to teach them?Mr. Walden : I am genuinely sorry to hear that intervention. It is of a paltry and old-fashioned nature. To reply to the hon. Lady's question, yes, I grew up in the state sector. Also, I would not dream of sending my own children into the state sector in the area in which I live because I disapprove of the entire philosophy of teaching which reigns there. I would do anything in my power, and I spend large amounts of money at enormous personal cost, to escape from the state sector. I resent that, because in other more advanced European countries the state sector is far superior to ours, partly because it does not follow the philosophy favoured by the hon. Lady's party--but I shall not go into that.
I insist on the point about the sex of teachers. The hon. Lady's intervention was tiresomely fashionable. I am talking in the sense in which ordinary people understand these matters. It seems abnormal that there should be schools, as there are in my constituency, where there is not one male teacher. That is wrong.
I shall stop now because I want to leave hon. Members on both sides time to speak. My remarks about the sex of teachers are relevant because one effect of the Government's enlightened view of teachers' pay is that it will in the future, particularly after the pay review body is introduced, lead to a greater proportion of men in the profession so that we have a more balanced teaching force and teaching is seen not as a second income but as an honourable profession for all people with the requisite intellectual and teaching qualifications, be they men or women.
11.5 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : I am at a loss to speak following that extraordinarily bigoted and unimaginative speech. We poor women who have undertaken dreadful jobs such as teaching, nursing and being MPs are frequently overwhelmed by the superior intellects represented by the male sex, and obviously we should be replaced in the schools and hospital system because we are not capable of coping.
I resent the order because a number of members of my family have given their whole lives to teaching, are extremely well qualified and have always considered that caring about what happened to the children and the quality of the work done in the classroom was important. Because I care so much about this issue, I circulated all the schools in my constituency with a questionnaire connected directly to what was happening under the local management of schools and in terms of pay and conditions.
For the Secretary of State to make such remarks about an order which, frankly, will not deal with the real problems of state education was little short of an insult to people who have given their lives to the teaching profession. What is happening in the state system today is clear. When people are properly qualified, are at the top of their scales and are in schools in which there is considerable pressure on budgets, they are being made
Column 259
redundant. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not aware of that, I am even more horrified than I would be in normal circumstances.The quality of state education, which is important to90 per cent. of the country's children, should be primary. We should not have to sit here listening to people who themselves do not send their children to the state system telling us that we can experiment anywhere we like. I find that offensive and unacceptable. I shall vote against the order with great pleasure, not because it will produce flexibility, not because it recognises the ability of those in the state system who need special payment for their abilities and qualifications, but because it is yet another cynical gesture which will not alter the terms and conditions of those who are important, will not find money for the state system to do those things that are regarded as important, but because it will simply contribute to the extraordinary gesture politics to which we listened from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who supposedly contributed to the debate.
11.7 pm
Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth) : I approach the debate with a sense of sadness because it is the last in the present series of debates. I feel almost nostalgic, especially as I read the Official Reports of previous debates. They included contributions by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), but I shall not embarrass him by quoting them.
The interim advisory committee is about to be overtaken by the School Teachers Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill. That committee has served the nation and its teachers well. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leeds, Central join in thanking it for its excellent work over a number of years, and I echo their words.
That committee has helped teachers, and it is not without significance that since April 1987 their pay has increased in cash terms by 40.2 per cent. But there is a better, albeit unusual, yardstick to measure the effectiveness of the work of that committee--the number of strikes by teachers and ancillary helpers. In the past three years, under the interim advisory committee, some 60, 000 days were lost by teachers and helpers. That is to be compared with 1985, when in just one year no fewer than 851,000 days were lost through strikes. That shows the committee's effectiveness. It is a truism that the education of the nation's children is of critical importance to the nation's well-being. Teachers' pay is important, and is part of that process. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the majority of the nation's teachers are dedicated not just to their profession but to the children in their charge.
If there is a small minority who bring the profession into disrepute, they are sometimes helped by certain local authorities. In Lambeth, for example, we have witnessed the extraordinary situation whereby heads have found it necessary to appeal to the Department of Education and Science for help if the educational process is not to break down. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) was hinting at that when he described the situation in the district where his children
Column 260
should be educated, but which is in such poor shape that he is compelled to send them elsewhere. It is an appalling commentary on what occurs in some of our local education authorities that some of them have to approach the DES for advice.One way in which parents in Lambeth can overcome the problem confronting them is to consider grant-maintained status for their children's schools, which will give them an opportunity to cut the noose which secures them to the local authority.
The School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill will enhance teachers' status. It will take over from the IAC, and will introduce a review body. It is interesting to draw a comparison with the arrangement that exists for nurses. I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). Since the inception of the nurses' review body six years ago, nurses' pay has increased by 63 per cent.--22 per cent. more than inflation. That answers the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. The precedent established by the nurses' review body is a good one for teachers. The increase in nurses' pay was not achieved at the cost of jobs in that profession. Over the same period, the number of nurses increased. This year, teachers' pay will increase by 9.8 per cent., at a time when inflation is less than 6 per cent. and falling. The IAC increase will give the average classroom teacher earnings of around £17,000 a year. Average earnings together with the incentive allowance will, in the case of a secondary teacher on the top point of the scale, provide remuneration of £20,300 a year. The relevant figure for primary school teachers at the top point of the scale will be £18, 300.
Seventy per cent. of secondary school teachers, and 50 per cent. of primary school teachers, are at the top of their scales. Those figures will help recruitment to the profession. Entries to teacher training colleges are already at their highest level since 1972, and there is improved recruitment in the sciences, physics, chemistry and biology.
Earlier, I said that the majority of teachers are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. That dedication, and the success that those teachers enjoy, is emphasised by the increase in the number of pupils entering higher education. In 1980, one in eight of the target group went into higher education. In those days, higher education could truly be called elitist but the Government have remedied that. This year, one in five of the target group are in advanced education. That figure will improve to one in four by the year 2000. The fact that there are well over a million students in our colleges and universities this year underlines, as nothing else can, how much standards of education have improved under the Government. Much of the credit for that improvement must go to teachers, but it will be readily understood that the increase in student numbers is based on, and must depend on, the number of young people who obtain good A-level results.
Although the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio--now 17 to one--has helped, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State can take considerable credit for the substantial increase in funding this year. Spending on education has risen by 16 per cent. this year to £17.5 billion. As a percentage of gross national product, we now spend more on education than any of our principal competitors.
Column 261
The answer to a parliamentary question of mine shows that, in 1986, total public expenditure on education was 4.9 per cent. of GNP in the United Kingdom, 4.7 per cent. in the United States, 4.4 per cent. in Japan, and 4.4 per cent. in the then West Germany. Mr. Ralph Howell (Norfolk, North) : I find my hon. Friend's arguments difficult to follow. I thought that we were trying to contain inflation, but he says that we are spending more and have more teachers. Is my hon. Friend aware that we have 73,000 more teachers and 750,000 fewer pupils than in 1970? How does he square that up?Mr. Pawsey : The answer to my hon. Friend's question--he is truly a good friend of mine--is the improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. I welcome that improvement and am anxious to see increased spending on education. I want more and better paid teachers, which is one of the reasons why I shall support the order.
Pay is important, but it is far from being everything. Teachers are sometimes browned off with the speed and scope of reforms. Most of them accept that reform is necessary, but many classroom teachers have a mountain of paper to climb. The forms, questionnaires, guides, documents and advice that pour into the nation's schools have become a torrent, coming from the Department of Education and Science, local authorities and quangos.
The headmaster of one of my middle schools today described to me with feeling the amount of paper that descends on classroom teachers. He told me that his teachers now spend three to four hours every week more than the mandatory 1,265 hours doing paper work. The deluge of paper is more than simply a passing distraction--it saps energy and enthusiasm and it demotivates.
We need to get teachers in front of the class, doing the job they are paid to do, but the red tape traps and suffocates so I should appreciate a cut in that. I shall support the order.
11.19 pm
Mr. Mike Carr (Ribble Valley) : I am pleased to note that this is the last motion that the Secretary of State will move under the present system--that is, after receiving advice from the interim advisory committee. Few teachers will mourn the passing of that committee.
Last year, in a parallel debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the loss of morale in the teaching profession. Morale remains low. Many teachers--while welcoming the setting up of an independent review body to recommend future pay awards--will be waiting to see how that works in practice, and whether the Government's stated intention to reward them appropriately becomes a reality.
The reality of this year's pay award is yet another phased increase. The full implementation of the IAC recommendations was estimated to increase the teachers' pay bill by 11.3 per cent. By paying the award in two stages, the first on 1 April and the second on 1 December, the Government have reduced the cost to 8.4 per cent. for 1991-92. That hardly sounds like a full acceptance of the IAC recommendations.
Talk of global percentages, however, tells us nothing about how teachers feel. Many teachers see the phasing as proof that the Government prefer playing with figures to paying teachers properly. In many schools, local management of schools means that salary budgets are
Column 262
funded on the basis of average teacher salaries rather than that of actual salary costs. When that is taken into account, the picture becomes very depressing.Local authority employers have not the money to meet their costs. In an attempt to balance their budgets, school governing budgets and local education authorities are having to make teachers redundant to pay others the recommended increase. It is little wonder that teacher morale remains low.
How does the Government's decision to phase the award affect teachers? For eight months, teachers on the main standard scale will receive no more than a 7.5 per cent. increase. They will feel that they have done poorly when they compare themselves with private-sector employees. From December, standard-scale teachers will receive the remaining 2.5 per cent. of their increase. Over 1991-92 as a whole, the standard-scale teacher--that is, the classroom teacher, the backbone of the profession--who continues to serve our children well will receive only 8.19 per cent. more than he or she was paid the previous year.
Many of my friends are teachers. I visit many schools in my constituency, and talk to many teachers there. They have tackled all the Government's reforms in recent years, and have tried to make them work in the children's interests ; they have improved the rate of public examination passes ; many have worked in schools with poor standards of repair and a lack of material resources. The Government, however, have failed to reward standard-scale teachers properly, and in doing so have effectively told them, "We will pay you as little as we can get away with paying."
Let me mark the passing of the IAC by saying that I hope that this is the last time that we shall see our teachers and our children short-changed, and the last time that local education authorities and schools will have to meet bills without having the money to do so. I hope ; but I fear that my hopes will not be realised.
Question put :--
The House divided : Ayes 220, Noes 127.
Division No. 179] [11.23 pm
AYES
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Allason, Rupert
Alton, David
Amess, David
Amos, Alan
Arbuthnot, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas
Ashby, David
Atkins, Robert
Atkinson, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Beith, A. J.
Bellingham, Henry
Bendall, Vivian
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Blackburn, Dr John G.
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Boswell, Tim
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Brazier, Julian
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)
Burns, Simon
Burt, Alistair
Butcher, John
Butler, Chris
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Carr, Michael
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)
Conway, Derek
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cormack, Patrick
Couchman, James
Cran, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)
Davis, David (Boothferry)
Day, Stephen
Dickens, Geoffrey
Dorrell, Stephen
| Next Section
| Home Page |