I beg to move,
That the draft Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 9th May, be approved.
The order will give effect to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1991. Once the House has given effect to the order, as I hope that it will, local education authorities and governors of grant-maintained schools will be required to pay teachers at the new rates.
All this goes back to September last year, when my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State asked the interim advisory committee to advise on teachers' pay in 1991–92. He asked it to look at ways of further increasing flexibility within the pay system in order to improve recruitment and retention—paying particular attention to measures to help LEAs tackle teacher shortages in key subjects or in particular areas such as London—and to reward excellence in classroom teaching. He also asked it to review the pay of heads and deputies.
The committee carried out its remit admirably, and produced the fourth in what has been a series of excellent reports. It recommended a number of improvements to extend local discretion and flexibility. The report emphasised the importance of using pay flexibilities imaginatively and purposefully to meet local priorities, to provide an attractive career structure, to reward responsibility and good performance and to attract high quality entrants to the profession.
I received the report on 18 January, and announced on 31 January that I proposed to accept its recommendations but to stage their introduction in the same way as for the review body groups that the Government were considering at the same time. I explained that, in view of the size of the proposed pay award, and for wider economic reasons, the recommendations would be implemented in full only by 1 December 1991. That meant that teachers would receive equal treatment with the groups—such as the clinical professions covered by the review bodies that had reported at the same time.
The Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 requires consultation with interested parties before the proposals can be implemented. My ministerial colleagues and I carried out those consultations. I carefully considered the points that were made by teachers' unions and employers both in meetings and in writing. I have concluded, however, that the Government proposal to accept the recommendations in full, but to stage their introduction in the period up to 1 December, should be given effect.
Implementation of the committee's recommendations will mean substantial rises for all teachers, particularly heads, deputy heads and teachers who have more responsibility. When fully implemented, the heads' and deputies' pay spine will increase by 12.75 per cent., and all ranges on that spine will be extended by two points. The standard scale for classroom teachers will increase by 9.5 per cent., and incremental enhancements will be uprated by a similar amount. London allowances and the discretionary inner London supplement will increase by 9.38 per cent., backdated to 1 July 1990.
In addition to those recommendations, which we have accepted, the interim advisory committee reaffirmed its belief that incentive allowances have a key role to play in recruiting, retaining and motivating teachers. It therefore recommended a 30 per cent. increase in the value of the five rates of allowance—a substantial increase indeed—taking the value of the highest incentive allowance to more than £7,100. It also proposed that an extra 9,100 incentive allowances should be introduced in the 1991–92 academic year, bringing the total number of allowances in primary and secondary schools to almost 200,000.
In making its generous recommendations, the committee rightly drew particular attention to the importance of awarding more incentive allowances to teachers in smaller primary schools, who feel that they have not been properly treated in the past.
I am pleased that in all its generous recommendations the IAC drew particular attention to the importance of rewarding good classroom performance. Compared with others, the teacher who dedicates himself or herself to a lifelong career in teaching, and who discovers that his or her gifts lie in teaching children in classrooms in an inspirational way, has been least well treated in our pay arrangements.
The IAC recommended that from 1 September discretionary scale points above the standard scale should be awarded solely against the criterion of a teacher's performance across all aspects of their professional duties, having particular regard to their classroom teaching. The upper limit of the discretionary scale will rise to £3,000. Most important, the discretion to put in place additional scale points will be devolved to the governing bodies of schools with delegated budgets. Some governing bodies who wanted to use the discretionary scale points but found that, for some reason, their local authority discouraged them from doing so will now be able to reward their staff appropriately.
In calculating the size and deployment of education spending in 1991–92, the Government assumed that about £150 million will be available to be spent on those and other new pay discretions. I hope, therefore, that governing bodies and local education authorities will use them to the full to motivate their teachers and to reward achievement, particular effort and good classroom performance.
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on accepting the important additions to the scale, but how will good performance in the classroom be measured? Will it be measured independently of school authorities to ensure that there is no favouritism from the head teacher?
In all jobs where an element of pay is based on performance somebody has to judge the performance. A head teacher must have some authority, and we are giving additional responsibility to school governors. I accept that that is a big move, but I see no reason why a good governing body, which will soon have the results of the appraisal arrangements that we have introduced, should not consult head teachers and make its own judgment about a particularly valued member of staff who, according to all the information available, is an effective classroom teacher. When one tries to move over in the public sector to performance-related payments, it is a great mistake to get too bogged down in all the arguments about setting up great institutional arrangements, endless appeals, and so on, which tend to come into public sector debates. In most walks of life, people's performance in their jobs in judged by those to whom they are responsible. I see no reason why most heads and most governors should not be given that responsibility.
There is a problem in state schools, such as in my constituency, where teachers remain on the staff for some years. Many are at the top of the scale and, under the present funding arrangements, they are finding life difficult. I understood from my right hon. and learned Friend's office that this matter was under consideration. May I take it that that is still the case?
We are moving from a system under which everyone was tied to the scale and, once one reached the top, no additional payments were available. I am glad to say that one of the most effective results of having had an advisory committee for the past two or three years has been the move to incentive allowances, discretionary scale payments, and so on. I do not approve of the traditional trade union view of public sector pay, whereby one moves in increments according to years of service, stops, and waits to move on. When one concentrates on good performance, someone must judge that performance. I see no reason why that should not be the head teacher and the governors.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that even in Cabinet kissing goes by favour? Schools do not differ from any other organisation in that sense. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he wants to give greater freedom to good governors. What will happen if there is a bad head and a bad governor and decisions are taken on this highly partial basis?
I do not believe that one can pay a professional on the basis that no one should be allowed to judge his or her performance. We now require much greater exercise of responsibility by the governing body and head teachers. I am not against giving them the authority to contemplate rewarding good classroom performance or someone who carries particularly heavy responsibility. In recruiting their staff, they must also have regard to the need to recruit someone with specialist skills in a subject where they cannot otherwise get someone of the right quality. There are parts of the country where they must have regard to the cost of getting a good teacher, given the local labour market. We have been building those essential flexibilities into the system for the past three or four years.
We have agreed that this should be a fairly short debate. I shall move around and give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack).
I am grateful to my right hon and learned Friend. I think that I am on the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). With great respect, my right hon. and learned Friend missed the point. There are a number of schools where many teachers have been on the staff for many years and therefore, rightly, are at the top of the scale. The new funding system militates against those schools, which are faced with a difficult dilemma: either they shed people who have served faithfully and well for many years or they face the fact that their schools are in jeopardy. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address that point?
I shall do so, if you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it does not have much to do with the order. The point now being raised relates to the effect of local management of schools where a local authority decides on an objective formula by which it distributes money to the schools in its area. The argument is that the formula is based on pupils and not on the make-up of the staff and that some schools find that their staff costs are high because all their teachers are at the top of the scale.
It is important to have a formula distribution of the money based on pupils and that we do not just accept the existing costs of schools. I agree that when one starts doing that, anomalies of the kind that I described are revealed. Usually, for the first time, people realise the funding variations between schools which occurred in the past and which no one previously noticed. One may find that in the past a school had particularly heavy staff costs and that such costs will take a high proportion of its former allocation. I agree that difficult decisions will eventually have to be taken. The school must decide whether it can justify spending such a high proportion of its allocation on staff—
Let me answer before giving way again. Some schools have difficult choices to make about the value of experienced staff vis-a-vis costs. Of course other schools gain because they discover that they have been underfunded in the past. When money is distributed fairly by formula, one or two schools will find that they are better financed than some of their neighbours and may decide to release a teacher. If he is a good teacher, many other schools with money to spare will find the addition of an experienced member of staff to their payroll worth while.
We should not shrink from adopting a formula for the allocation of funds based on the number of pupils because it means that the future growth of money depends on the ability of a school to attract funds. The formula must be based on the number of pupils rather than on the salary scale or the historic staff costs of the school. However, this off-the-cuff discussion on local management of schools has nothing whatever to do with the order.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that primary schools are in a particularly difficult position? Does he also accept that it is tempting for governors to release a highly paid and experienced teacher at the top of the salary scale and replace him with two inexperienced teachers?
I agree with my hon. Friend about smaller schools in which it is difficult to decide whether to have three or four teachers. The scheme's transitional arrangements will ease that difficulty. It is open to each county council to decide how to draw up a formula for distributing the money, and each council will decide how to give additional weight to pupil numbers in small schools. In a county such as the one that my hon. Friend helps to represent there are many rural schools and it will be for the county council to decide how heavily to weight the distribution of funds in favour of small primary schools so as to avoid the difficulties that my hon. Friend describes.
The order contributes to a solution of the problems in that it gives generous pay increases to all teachers and extends yet further the ability of governing bodies with spare money in their budgets to use incentive allowances and discretionary scale payments to reward teachers for good performance, whether or not they are at the top of the scale. We have added to the standard spending assessments for local authorities the extra resources that they require to meet these large increases in future salaries. However, the problems of distribution remain and are not affected by the order.
The outside world and most teachers will want to know exactly what the order means in terms of teachers' pay. There is widespread public concern about teachers' pay and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly expressed the sentiment of our right hon. and hon. Friends that good teachers must be properly rewarded if we are to have a good education system.
These increases in salary points and allowances mean that by December the maximum possible salary for a classroom teacher will be almost £28,000, or more than £30,000 in inner London. That is an increase of more than £4,000 on the maximum that a classroom teacher could have earned before. The average classroom teacher will earn more than £17,000, which is an increase of almost 11 per cent. Average earnings for a primary school teacher at the top of the standard scale will be some £18,300. For a secondary school teacher at the top of the scale the average salary will be about £20,200, which is £2,700 above the scale maximum of £17,500. People will say that that is not excessive pay for teachers. I do not think that there is widespread understanding of the fact that that is the pay level to which they have been moved during the lifetime of this Government—especially by these latest increases.
I disapprove of the practice—although I understand it—followed by teachers unions of never using the figures that I have just given. Like all good trade unionists I have ever encountered, they use the scale as though it bore some direct relation to earnings. The NUT frequently implies that £17,500 is the most that an average classroom teacher can hope to earn. It is using the value of the top point of the scale. I have touched on the generosity and the extension of the incentive allowance and discretionary scale payments, so that the NUT figures bear no relation to what teachers earn "on the ground"—and that can be extremely misleading for those considering entering the profession.
The scale figure takes no account of incentive allowances, despite the fact that this September the Government's plans assume that some 50 per cent of primary teachers and 70 per cent of all secondary teachers will receive allowances, and that their value will rise by 30 per cent. The IAC itself pointed out that the effect of its recommendations will mean that the average earnings for a primary school teacher at the top of the standard scale would be about £18,300 and for a secondary school teacher at the top of the scale would be about £20,200. It urged all concerned to give these figures wide circulation and to dispel the mistaken impression that the top of the standard scale is the most that classroom teachers can earn. Even these figures take no account of discretionary scale points which can be awarded by LEAs and governing bodies to teachers on the top of the scale—as I said when I originally misunderstood the interruption by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)
These extra payments at the top of the scale can be very substantial. Discretionary scale points, which are to be awarded on the basis of good performance, can add up to £2,000 to a teacher's salary, and this will rise to £3,000 in September. The value of incentive allowances has increased dramatically since they were introduced in 1987—in the case of the A allowance by nearly 150 per cent. From 1 December the E allowance will be worth more than £7,000 per year. Used imaginatively, these allowances can be a very powerful recruitment and retention incentive, and a substantial reward for excellence in the classroom.
I believe that this is a generous package. It has been much criticised to me privately, not so much by teachers complaining about its adequacy as by people in other walks of life complaining about how the Government can give these high increases in salary to public sector employees at a time of recession. I make no apologies for doing so. The demands that we are making of teachers and the commitment that we are giving to improving educational standards require that we motivate the best of our teachers and reward them properly. By any standards, these will be exceptional pay increases compared with any that those in other walks of life may expect in the coming year—and rightly so.
The IAC also stressed the importance of effective, positive management by heads and deputies, and of seizing the opportunities provided by the local management of schools. I am sure that it is right to do so. I have been encouraged by the committee's comments about the changes that it observed in schools which have delegated budgets under LMS arrangements. The committee said that it saw indications of an increase in morale among teachers, partly as a result of the new freedoms available under LMS. It noted in its report that, in schools where LMS was in place,
the freedom associated with delegated budgeting was warmly welcomed, and was being used by the head teacher to achieve ends which benefited teachers and pupils: employing additional non-teaching staff to relieve teachers of clerical and other time-consuming tasks; ensuring adequate cover with supply teachers; and undertaking programmes of redecoration and minor building works".
I quote that endorsement by an independent body of the move to LMS, which has been such a widespread success in this country. The Opposition parties now support LMS, but it has been their custom in the past to defend the centralisation of most budgeting and control in the hands of local authorities. I see the Opposition spokesmen shaking their heads at that—I am sure that they now warmly endorse our LMS proposals.
I well understand that head teachers and deputies increasingly have heavy responsibilities being loaded upon them by the Government's reforms. The IAC's recommendations mean that the head teacher of a large secondary school outside London will be able to earn £47,000 or more each year. The head of a typical primary school will receive almost £2,400 extra, taking his or her pay to £23,500 each year. The head of a typical secondary school will see his or her pay rise by more than £3,600 to more than £32,000.
I think that the highest paid head teacher that I have ever heard of in the state sector is earning £55,000 each year.
Those are responsible positions and they deserve responsible rewards. It should be an attraction to those contemplating teaching to realise that rewards of that kind are now available in the profession.
The changes recommended by the committee and accepted by the Government will help to recruit, retain and motivate sufficient teachers of the quality that the country needs. They give governing bodies and local education authorities more discretion to make selective payments in the light of local circumstances. They will greatly increase the capacity for local management to manage their own schools.
As the House is aware, the Government's intention is that next year's pay settlement should be determined by an independent review body. We have defeated the Labour party's opposition to that and the Bill is now in another place. This is therefore the right time to pay tribute to the work of the IAC during the past four years. Its clear analyses and constructive recommendations for change have won support across a broad spectrum of opinion. The IAC's reports have provided an admirable basis for the future development of the teachers' pay structure and, by highlighting and encouraging teacher professionalism, have played an important part in preparing the way for the award to teachers of review body status that we now propose.
The recommendations of the IAC for 1991–92 are embodied in the order which is needed to ensure that teachers receive their pay increases. If the House by any chance votes against it, all the pay increases that I have described will not normally be payable for the year ahead. On that ground, because I approve strongly of the increases, I commend the order to the House and ask that it be approved.
I agree with one or two of the comments made by the Secretary of State, but I preface my remarks by offering to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). He has given his apologies to the Secretary of State, but he would like to give them to the House as well. Unfortunately, he cannot be with us tonight, for good reasons.
I agree with the Secretary of State's final comments in praise of the work of the IAC. It is appropriate for the House to thank all those who have been involved in the work of the IAC for their reports and for the analysis and information contained in them. There has been some disagreement among those directly affected in terms of the mechanism—there was a strong argument repeated in the IAC final report in favour of the restoration of collective bargaining and that was the view among teachers and teachers' organisations—but it is to the IAC's credit that it has succeeded in winning the confidence of those who may well have been opposed to the mechanism. It is of even greater credit to work on that basis and gain the support of one's opponents. We should like to put on the record the Opposition's thanks to those directly involved in the IAC and its work.
The hon. Gentleman asks that more with public transport in mind than teachers' pay, but I shall return to that point.
We strongly agree with some areas of the report that I shall highlight. First, the report makes a strong case, as I think the Secretary of State recognised, for teacher appraisal. That is important in terms of professional development. If we are to improve the overall performance of education, it is crucial to have a teacher force which has self-confidence and the ability to build on its strengths and to remove the weaknesses that may exist in its performance.
As somebody who taught for a number of years in a university, I think that the process of appraisal may also be appropriate to higher education and teacher performance there. Having said that, I recognise that I was one of the best teachers in the institution and, therefore, had no need of appraisal! I understand, however, that there was a strong objective case for appraisal.
The Opposition agree strongly with the principle of appraisal, but we share the disappointment that was expressed implicitly in the report that the Government are not making available for that process the money that has been considered necessary, especially for training. There is a substantial task, and I think that the Government could have made more resources available. If they had done so, there would be more confidence in the system of appraisal that has been adopted and in the objectivity of that system.
We agree with the IAC's report on local pay bargaining. Those who have followed the debates on school teachers' pay will understand that the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill—the No. 1 Bill—contained support for the possibility that individual schools and local education authorities should be able to opt out of national procedures. However, the report states extremely effectively that there is substantial flexibility in the system already and that there is no need for the opt-out that was proposed in the Bill. If the Government listened to the committee and dropped the proposal from the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, I am glad that they did so.
We approve of the IAC's comments on non-contact hours for primary school teachers. That raises an issue that the Government need to consider, and it was addressed in the annual reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate this year and last year. Primary school teachers have been subjected to extensive change and an increase in stress over the past two or three years. The process of introducing the national curriculum has been a greater burden on primary schools, I think, than on schools in the secondary sector. The notions of introducing primary science and primary technology are real changes on which we must build. They introduce an area of real development. It is important, however, to understand that if a primary school teacher is to deliver at the level that we would wish, there is a strong argument for non-contact hours. That is a recommendation of the IAC's report, and of the annual report of Her Majesty's inspectorate. It would be useful if the Government accepted the need to take up the recommendation.
We agree with the IAC's general comments about teachers, and it is worth putting them on the record again. The committee makes a strong report that in the schools that its representatives visited it was found that teachers were working hard, that they were performing well and that they were committed to the system and the children they were teaching. It is worthwhile always to state that part of the report and to get it on the record.
Perhaps the crucial issue is whether the IAC has raised the profile and status of teaching and its professionalism over the years. It is sad to find at paragraph 3·44 of its report the following comment:
Pay continues to be a key factor in determining morale. Teachers told us that although their starting salaries have been comparable with those of their contemporaries who graduated with them, in a very few years the salary gap had widened. Few teachers had expected that their chosen profession would bring the financial rewards which are available in other sectors of the economy. Many commented on the satisfaction teaching brought them, but there were still bills to be paid.
The paragraph ended:
Some teachers had second jobs in order to make ends meet.
The hon. Gentleman talks about £28,000 a year. As the Secretary of State said, the average salary is £17,000.
We must consider the problem of teachers' salaries when they are five years into teaching. It is important that that is considered by the review body that deals with next year's pay settlement. There is a haemorrhage from the profession of those who are in their first five years. The IAC has found that at that point of comparability there is a disparity between teaching and other professions. Teaching looks less attractive than other professions. If the Secretary of State is right—and I believe that he is—to say that if we are to have a highly qualified and highly motivated teaching profession, it must have salaries commensurate with—
It is important that we have a salary scale at a career point that is attractive and which relates to that of other professions. The interim advisory committee has not yet dealt sufficiently with that problem. I shall make one further point before giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and to the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham).
The hon. Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned the local management of schools, which is important. One way to improve the career prospects of individual teachers is to use the incentive allowance and the discretionary payments. There is a genuine problem for those schools that have a particular difficulty with their budgets. Both hon. Members were right, and the Secretary of State did not deal adequately with that issue. If the budget is tight, however good the teacher it will be impossible to pay him the incentive allowance or the discretionary award.
In that case, what advice would my hon. Friend give to those teachers who have excellent, proven records and very good qualifications but who, in their early 50s, are being made redundant merely because schools cannot afford them? That is not happening just once—it is happening across the country. There is a haemorrhage of graduate teachers at the top of the scale.
I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I also heard the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich who makes an important point. There is a problem. The hon. Member for High Peak agreed by saying that some teachers are just too expensive for a particular school and are therefore faced with the threat of compulsory redundancy.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will also hear what I have to say. If the simplistic and absurd formula, which is currently used for the costing of schools, used the average cost of a teacher instead of the actual cost of a teacher, the cost would average out over the nation—or the county —as a whole. There would not then be the problem of an individual school having—as some small schools in my constituency have—four senior teachers who are too expensive because they are older, higher up the scale or have merit awards. But the schools have to shed teachers and have large classes solely because the formula stupidly builds in the actual, rather than the average, cost of a teacher.
Let me answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich by saying that the hon. Member for High Peak got it the wrong way round, although the principle behind what he said was absolutely correct. The formula should involve average teacher salaries rather than actual teacher salaries.
I know what the hon. Gentleman meant and I appreciate the point that he was making. My advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich is that the formula for local management of schools needs to be changed. Otherwise, there will be the continued nonsense that senior, well-respected, important members of staff will be penalised and, in some cases, threatened with redundancy. That does not make sense—
—and are being made redundant. I accept that, which is why there is a need for additional funding, but also for a change in the formula. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen not just to the representations from the Opposition, but to those being made forcefully by Conservative Members. The formula must be changed.
The hon. Gentleman talks about the importance of incentives for teachers, but what incentive would there be for a head teacher who found his pay slashed under Labour's plans to increase the top rate of tax?
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is well suited to the role of Whip because silence is the best virtue for him.
It would be more useful to move the debate in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, and by the hon. Members for High Peak and for Lancaster. We need to reconsider the formula so that teachers are not penalised in the way that we have discussed. I was trying to make the point to the Secretary of State that it is no good saying that, within the system, we can top up the standard scale for teachers by incentive allowances and discretionary payments if the money is not there and the school is under financial pressure.
There seems to be a long-term and worrying pattern. Post-Houghton and post-Clegg, we had substantial immediate increases. In both cases, there was then a deterioration in the real level of teachers' pay. Teachers moved down the pay and salaries ladder. I fear that the same process has happened under the interim advisory committee. There has been, we accept, a large initial increase—the Baker increase, if I may call it that—but in subsequent years there has been a movement down the salary ladder. That may send a signal to teachers that the profession has occasional good years, but then a number of lean years. We need an approach to teachers' pay that gives the impression, year after year, that teachers are valued and important.
I am one of the hon. Members who were enthusiastic about the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill which will bring in a pay review body for teachers. The Opposition's position was not clear. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a new teachers' pay review body will help to overcome the very problem which he has just described?
That depends on the conditions under which that pay review body works. If the pay review body is totally free and is able to come up with the recommendations that, I suspect, the hon. Gentleman supports, it may work in that way. However, the evidence on the face of the Bill is that conditions are attached to the pay review body which may stop it working in the way to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this evening we have heard the Secretary of State give the reason why the pay review body will be no different from the interim advisory committee? The powers that the Secretary of State has used are identical to the powers that he will be able to use for the pay review body. The interim advisory committee recommended an increase that the Secretary of State decided to phase in. The settlement has not been implemented in one go. The Secretary of State will be able to do the same to the pay review body, so his powers will override the pay review body and he will be able to implement what he thinks fit.
As always, my hon. Friend makes a constructive intervention. He takes me on to the next part of my speech and he has also answered the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). The reason why we shall vote against the order tonight is that the interim advisory committee's report was changed in one key area —the phasing of the increase. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, that is an element of the conditions in the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill. It is important and will be noted by teachers that this year's interim advisory committee report's recommendations have been phased. There is an inconsistency in that position.
It does not help teacher morale, recruitment and retention for a so-called "independent" body to come forward with a set of recommendations and then for the Secretary of State with a stroke of a pen to change those recommendations. There is a deeper inconsistency which teachers will find worrying and which they will judge alongside the proposal for a pay review body. Two weeks ago, we were told by the Secretary of State that this year's standard spending assessments for local government were sufficient to cover an increase for teachers in the interquartile range—the area in which the interim advisory committee made its recommendations. The committee's recommendations were, exactly as asked, within the interquartile range of non-manual increases. The committee suggested a formula that meant that the implementation costs for 1991–92 were within the limit, yet again, of the interquartile non-manual range of salary increases.
The interim advisory committee delivered what the Secretary of State asked and the right hon. and learned Gentleman claims that the standard spending assessments are sufficient and that local government has the money to pay for the increase.
The two sides of the equation are that, according to the Secretary of State, local government has the resources and the interim advisory committee is carrying out its remit according to the terms set out by the Secretary of State. Having got both sides of the equation, the Secretary of State then decided that the teachers' salary increase should be phased. There is no justification for that in terms of the positions taken previously in relation to both local government and the interim advisory committee. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was making and it answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Norwich, North.
The signal going out to teachers is that a so-called "independent" body has produced a set of recommendations that it considers important for teacher morale, recruitment and retention, yet the Secretary of State has overturned those recommendations. Those are the conditions to which we referred during debates on the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill, and they are conditions about which teachers will be extremely worried. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there is an independent body if, when it reports, the right hon. Gentleman overturns its report. That does not build confidence in the system. That is why we shall vote against the order. It undermines the work of the interim advisory committee, gives too much power to the Secretary of Stale to operate it illogically, and is a bad signal for the future and for the pay review body.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that somewhat elephantine response. Is it the hon. Gentleman's 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?
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.
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 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 to 90 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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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. 1 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.
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 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.
|Division No. 179]||[11.23 pm|
|Alexander, Richard||Butcher, John|
|Alison, Rt Hon Michael||Butler, Chris|
|Allason, Rupert||Butterfill, John|
|Alton, David||Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)|
|Amess, David||Carlisle, John, (Luton N)|
|Amos, Alan||Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)|
|Arbuthnot, James||Carr, Michael|
|Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)||Carrington, Matthew|
|Arnold, Sir Thomas||Carttiss, Michael|
|Ashby, David||Cash, William|
|Atkins, Robert||Channon, Rt Hon Paul|
|Atkinson, David||Chapman, Sydney|
|Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)||Chope, Christopher|
|Beith, A. J.||Churchill, Mr|
|Bellingham, Henry||Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)|
|Bendall, Vivian||Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)|
|Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Conway, Derek|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)|
|Blackburn, Dr John G.||Coombs, Simon (Swindon)|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Cope, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Boswell, Tim||Cormack, Patrick|
|Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)||Couchman, James|
|Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)||Cran, James|
|Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes||Currie, Mrs Edwina|
|Brandon-Bravo, Martin||Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)|
|Brazier, Julian||Davis, David (Boothferry)|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)||Day, Stephen|
|Burns, Simon||Dickens, Geoffrey|
|Burt, Alistair||Dorrell, Stephen|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James||Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick|
|Dover, Den||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Dunn, Bob||Miller, Sir Hal|
|Durant, Sir Anthony||Mills, Iain|
|Dykes, Hugh||Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)|
|Eggar, Tim||Mitchell, Sir David|
|Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas||Monro, Sir Hector|
|Fearn, Ronald||Moss, Malcolm|
|Fenner, Dame Peggy||Nelson, Anthony|
|Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey||Neubert, Sir Michael|
|Fishburn, John Dudley||Nicholls, Patrick|
|Fookes, Dame Janet||Norris, Steve|
|Forman, Nigel||Paice, James|
|Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)||Patnick, Irvine|
|Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman||Pawsey, James|
|Fox, Sir Marcus||Porter, Barry (Wirral S)|
|French, Douglas||Porter, David (Waveney)|
|Gale, Roger||Powell, William (Corby)|
|Gardiner, Sir George||Price, Sir David|
|Gill, Christopher||Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy|
|Glyn, Dr Sir Alan||Renton, Rt Hon Tim|
|Goodlad, Alastair||Rhodes James, Sir Robert|
|Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles||Riddick, Graham|
|Green way, Harry (Eating N)||Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn|
|Greenway, John (Ryedale)||Rowe, Andrew|
|Gregory, Conal||Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela|
|Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)||Sackville, Hon Tom|
|Grist, Ian||Shaw, David (Dover)|
|Ground, Patrick||Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)|
|Hague, William||Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')|
|Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)||Shelton, Sir William|
|Hampson, Dr Keith||Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)|
|Hannam, John||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')||Skeet, Sir Trevor|
|Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)||Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)|
|Harris, David||Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Soames, Hon Nicholas|
|Hawkins, Christopher||Speller, Tony|
|Hayes, Jerry||Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)|
|Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)||Squire, Robin|
|Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.||Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John|
|Hill, James||Steel, Rt Hon Sir David|
|Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)||Steen, Anthony|
|Howarth, G. (Cannock amp; B'wd)||Stern, Michael|
|Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)||Stevens, Lewis|
|Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)||Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)|
|Hughes, Simon (Southwark)||Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)|
|Irvine, Michael||Stokes, Sir John|
|Jack, Michael||Summerson, Hugo|
|Janman, Tim||Tapsell, Sir Peter|
|Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey||Taylor, Ian (Esher)|
|Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Jones, Robert B (Herts W)||Taylor, Sir Teddy (S'end E)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman|
|Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)||Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)|
|Kirkhope, Timothy||Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)|
|Knapman, Roger||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Knight, Greg (Derby North)||Thurnham, Peter|
|Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)||Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)|
|Knowles, Michael||Tracey, Richard|
|Knox, David||Tredinnick, David|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Twinn, Dr Ian|
|Lee, John (Pendle)||Vaughan, Sir Gerard|
|Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)||Walden, George|
|Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)||Walker, Bill (T'side North)|
|Livsey, Richard||Wallace, James|
|Lord, Michael||Ward, John|
|Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard||Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)|
|Maclean, David||Watts, John|
|McLoughlin, Patrick||Wells, Bowen|
|McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick||Wheeler, Sir John|
|Malins, Humfrey||Whitney, Ray|
|Mans, Keith||Widdecombe, Ann|
|Maples, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Marland, Paul||Winterton, Mrs Ann|
|Marlow, Tony||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Maude, Hon Francis||Wolfson, Mark|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Wood, Timothy|
|Woodcock, Dr. Mike||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|Young, Sir George (Acton)||Mr. David Lightbown and|
|Mr. John M. Taylor.|
|Abbott, Ms Diane||Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald|
|Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)||Lamond, James|
|Anderson, Donald||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Banks, Tony (Newham NW)||Loyden, Eddie|
|Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)||McAllion, John|
|Barron, Kevin||McFall, John|
|Battle, John||McKelvey, William|
|Beckett, Margaret||McLeish, Henry|
|Bell, Stuart||McMaster, Gordon|
|Benn, Rt Hon Tony||Mahon, Mrs Alice|
|Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)||Marek, Dr John|
|Blunkett, David||Marshall, David (Shettleston)|
|Boateng, Paul||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Boyes, Roland||Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)|
|Bradley, Keith||Martlew, Eric|
|Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)||Maxton, John|
|Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)||Meale, Alan|
|Caborn, Richard||Michael, Alun|
|Callaghan, Jim||Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)|
|Campbell-Savours, D. N.||Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)|
|Canavan, Dennis||Morgan, Rhodri|
|Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)||Morley, Elliot|
|Cohen, Harry||Mullin, Chris|
|Cousins, Jim||Murphy, Paul|
|Cox, Tom||Nellist, Dave|
|Cryer, Bob||O'Brien, William|
|Dalyell, Tam||Patchett, Terry|
|Darling, Alistair||Pendry, Tom|
|Dewar, Donald||Pike, Peter L.|
|Dixon, Don||Powell, Ray (Ogmore)|
|Dobson, Frank||Prescott, John|
|Duffy, Sir A. E. P.||Primarolo, Dawn|
|Dunnachie, Jimmy||Quin, Ms Joyce|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth||Randall, Stuart|
|Eadie, Alexander||Robertson, George|
|Eastham, Ken||Rogers, Allan|
|Edwards, Huw||Rowlands, Ted|
|Fatchett, Derek||Salmond, Alex|
|Field, Frank (Birkenhead)||Sheerman, Barry|
|Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)||Short, Clare|
|Fisher, Mark||Skinner, Dennis|
|Flynn, Paul||Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)|
|Foster, Derek||Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)|
|Foulkes, George||Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)|
|Fraser, John||Snape, Peter|
|Fyfe, Maria||Soley, Clive|
|Galloway, George||Spearing, Nigel|
|Godman, Dr Norman A.||Steinberg, Gerry|
|Golding, Mrs Llin||Strang, Gavin|
|Gordon, Mildred||Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)|
|Graham, Thomas||Taylor, Matthew (Truro)|
|Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)||Vaz, Keith|
|Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)||Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)|
|Hain, Peter||Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)|
|Heal, Mrs Sylvia||Williams, Rt Hon Alan|
|Hinchliffe, David||Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)|
|Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)||Wilson, Brian|
|Home Robertson, John||Wise, Mrs Audrey|
|Hood, Jimmy||Worthington, Tony|
|Howells, Geraint||Wray, Jimmy|
|Hoyle, Doug||Young, David (Bolton SE)|
|Hughes, John (Coventry NE)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Illsley, Eric||Mr. Frank Haynes and|
|Jones, Barry (Alyn amp; Deeside)||Mr. Thomas McAvoy.|
|Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)|