House of Lords
Monday, 24th June 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.
Higher Education: Pay
Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What steps they intend to take to increase the pay of university teachers.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the pay of staff in the higher education sector is determined through negotiations between higher education employers and the unions. The Government have increased publicly planned funding for higher education in England by £1.7 billion in the six years to 2003–04, a real-terms increase over that period of 18 per cent.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In asking this deeply unsound Question, perhaps I may assure him that I am not seeking to make a political point. However, is it not the case that the Government, as the ultimate providers of funds for universities, have a profound effect on what moneys are available for pay? Furthermore, is it not the case that over the past decade and a half, while there have been step changes in the pay of many groups in the public sector such as the police, nurses and so forth, we now have a situation where a university professor can earn less than half the salary of a headmaster of an important comprehensive school? Should not this issue be addressed in the Comprehensive Spending Review if our universities are to remain the great national asset that we want them to be?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the terms in which he has asked his supplementary questions. He is right to point out that academic pay is an issue. That is why we have allocated specific sums of money to assist with the problems of academic pay. The noble Lord will recognise that we are seeking to address particular areas of shortage. Furthermore, he is absolutely correct to say that this issue must be considered significant in the spending review, and that is exactly what the Government intend to do.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, first, given that a 30 year-old university lecturer can earn less than a 25 year-old primary school teacher, are the Government confident that they will not have to face the same crisis in recruitment and retention in the university sector as they now face in our schools?
Secondly, given that women lecturers consistently earn 20 to 25 per cent less than men, what are the Government doing to ensure that the universities address this issue? Is the gap in pay being closed?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, with regard to the second question put by the noble Baroness, it is certainly the case that the Government have addressed the issue of ensuring increased equality of pay in higher education. I think that the noble Baroness will recognise that efforts have been made in negotiations precisely to address this matter.
Turning to the question of recruitment and retention among university lecturers, there are specific areas where issues need to be addressed. However, overall the situation is by no means at crisis level. I think that the noble Baroness would recognise, too, that it is probably unfair to draw straight comparisons between teachers in one area of education and another. We value all teachers and therefore we would not want to do anything but take pride in the enhancement of salaries among school teachers which has taken place in recent years.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for conceding that there are problems to be addressed in this area. Perhaps I may ask him how and when it is proposed to address them.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue is already being addressed because we have increased by a significant amount the money available for staff pay. An increase of some £170 million has been made available to fund staff pay over the past three years. However, we recognise that in specific areas there are problems with regard both to retention and recruitment, such as in medicine. That is why a joint committee of representatives from the health and education departments has been set up to ensure that the extra students coming in to study medicine will be fully funded and that appropriate resources will be made available to meet those needs.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for admitting that there is a problem in this sector. Can he say whether he has studied the age profile of professors and lecturers in higher education? Has he noticed that very many more staff are in the higher age range, with far fewer at the lower end? Does he agree that that may coincide with the fact that salaries are not very attractive?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is certainly the case that a large number of university lecturers fall into the higher age bracket. That is a reflection of the very significant expansion in higher education which took place some 30 to 40 years ago; many of those staff were appointed and began their careers at that time.
I should like to offer the noble Lord some reassurance with regard to junior staff. The number of students successfully completing PhD courses is increasing significantly. At this point, therefore, there is no tremendous anxiety about the pool from which
staff for higher education may be drawn. However, we must consider whether such students will choose to move into higher education. That is a matter to which we are addressing our thoughts.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that one-third of the whole of university expenditure goes on academic salaries and that, through the funding council, the Government fund 50 per cent of university income plus another 12 per cent through other public bodies, making a total of 62 per cent? I do not see why, when the Minister replied to my noble friend's Question, the Government tried to disclaim responsibility for the appalling state of academic salaries.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hope that I was not in danger of disclaiming responsibility. I was seeking to reflect the obvious fact that negotiating machinery exists for decisions to be taken on HE pay. That machinery is used by the HE institutions and the unions and it is not for the Government to intervene in the process. The noble Baroness is right that the total sum available to the negotiators is an important factor in the outcome of such negotiations. That is why sums of up to £170 million over three years have been allocated specifically towards increasing higher education pay.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the question about the pay of women lecturers, does the Minister agree that the time when they tend to fall behind is when they are in their late thirties, which is both the time of the heaviest pressure to publish and the last practical years for child bearing? In the light of that, would it be sensible in considering publication to give more weight to quality and less to quantity? Does the Minister think that there are sound academic reasons for that approach anyway?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl's final point—of course quality is the issue. I share with the noble Earl the concern that, of all professions, higher education should continue to manifest discrimination against women to the extent that it does. Forty to 50 years ago, when the first attempts to improve opportunities and equality for women in society began, we would have anticipated that higher education would blaze a trail rather than be somewhat tardy in its approach to these matters. That is why we have devoted specific sums towards the issue of equality and we expect that important factor to be taken into account by HE employers.
Freedom of Information Act 2000: Section 77
2.45 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When it is proposed to bring into force Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, Section 77 is not yet in force. When it is, it will make it an offence for a person to destroy or alter a record requested either under the Freedom of Information Act or the Data Protection Act where this is done for the purpose of preventing its disclosure.
As I announced to your Lordships on 13th November last, the Freedom of Information Act is to be implemented in stages: first, rolling programmes of publication schemes and then the individual right of access to information in January 2005. It had been contemplated that Section 77 should also come into force on 1st January 2005. However, consideration of the noble and learned Lord's Question, as well as representations made by others, has prompted me to consult within government about the possibility of bringing the section into force earlier. I hope by October to be in a position to announce the Government's decision once consultation is complete.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend—not only formally—for that encouraging Answer, while I am on a winning streak may I tempt him a little further? Does he recollect that some time has passed since Mr Maurice Frankel pointed out that if Section 77 remains unimplemented while other sections of the Act are in force and applications are made, we may find that the quarry has escaped through a back window? Does my noble and learned friend agree that if burglars were given more than two years' warning that the police intended to visit their house with a search warrant, we might have less overcrowding in our prisons?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page