Skip to main content

Teachers' Pay And Conditions

Volume 115: debated on Tuesday 5 May 1987

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Question again proposed.

As I was saying, I do not cause teachers to disrupt; the union leaders issue the orders. It is tortuous logic to pretend that one does not cause what one commands. The half-day strikes taking place in 10 local education authorities this week are the direct consequence of actions taken by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. The strikes are totally unjustified.

The second fallacy is that Baker's contract will choke off good will. The order clarifies the range of duties teachers can be called upon to carry out. It is based closely on the proposals developed in the ACAS talks. For the great majority of conscientious teachers these duties will mean little, if any, change from what they have been doing for years. In an ideal world, there would be no need to spell out a profession's duties in this way. We had to go down this path because of the way in which the unions repeatedly exploited the lack of clarity in teachers' contracts. It is a travesty that the unions should suddenly forget the disruptive use they have been making for years of so-called "withdrawals of good will". The order is a major step forward in protecting parents and pupils from these abuses. Certainly parents will not understand or forgive teachers for clock-watching when they know that the required hours are far from onerous. Teachers will work under the direction of the head for 1,265 hours over 39 weeks of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the teachers' strike has resulted in a considerable waste of resources which would otherwise have been devoted to the benefit of pupils? Will he make it his business to estimate the cost of the wasted resources to the nearest thousand million?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the strikes have wasted resources. But they have wasted something more precious — the opportunities for children. It is always difficult to recapture those opportunities. I repeat that the strikes are unjustified.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he will ensure that the Inner London Education Authority applies these conditions to the Inner London Teachers Association?

I have just been talking about how endemic disruption has become in certain areas. In many parts of inner London disruption has become a way of life for many teachers. Many children are sent home day in, day out, week in, week out because in parts of London the ILTA has taken over the running of the education service. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.

The third fallacy, repeated by the hon. Member for Durham, North, is that I overturned a freely negotiated agreement. What agreement? The so-called ACAS agreement contained a little mentioned clause. Roughly translated, it said "We"—that is two of the six unions, not the other four, and the Labour and alliance employers, not the Conservatives—"agree subject to Mr. Baker providing the money". I had already put up £608 million of taxpayers' and ratepayers' money. But Burnham negotiators have Burnham ways. "More," they said—£85 million more for pay and over £100 million more for changes in working conditions. They knew it was not on, but Burnham cultivated gestures rather than realistic negotiations. So they got up an agreement — a conditional pay deal. It was bizarre then. It is even more bizarre now when one of the non-signatory unions—the NAS-UWT — proclaims the virtues of this so-called negotiated agreement. It was not a party to it. It sat on the sidelines prepared to take any advantage that came out of the talks without participating in the negotiations.

The fourth fallacy — also mentioned by the hon. Member for Durham, North—is that all would be well if Baker gave the unions their negotiating rights back. It is typical that there should be a move to fundamental rights. What about practical reality? The reality was Burnham, which was utterly discredited as a negotiating body. In the years 1974 to 1986 Burnham delivered only four negotiated settlements. In other years there were special awards, so in the last 12 years there were only——

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are used to hearing a smear a day from the Labour party, but, so that we can hear the rest of the debate, would you be kind enough, in the immortal words of the Leader of the Opposition, to tell the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) to shut up?

The Chair deprecates sedentary comments and interventions.

I was on the point of saying that in the 12 years from 1974 to 1986 only four settlements were negotiated by Burnham. In the other eight years there were either special awards, arbitrations or pay policy prescriptions. In its final months, Burnham needed the prop of ACAS to stagger from endless meeting to meeting. Always the inter-union rivalry and the battle for members took precedence over the search for a sensible negotiated agreement. As one union leader admitted, commenting on the Burnham machinery, some unions used Burnham as a recruiting tent rather than as a negotiating body. Let there be no mistake: Burnham had become the misuse rather than the exercise of negotiating rights.

The fifth fallacy, repeated by the hon. Member of Durham, North tonight, is that I have excluded the unions. The teachers' unions have a real, important part in the new, strictly temporary arrangements set up by the Act. The Act was the product of 50 hours of debate. There was no guillotine, and we accepted 13 amendments——

—here, and in the other House. We are a bicameral legislature.

One of the amendments that we accepted includes "interim" in the title of the body. The Act requires me to set up an interim advisory committee to consider teachers' pay and conditions. The committee will be appointed in the summer and will be made up of indpendent people. It will be responsible for advising on the April 1988 pay settlement. Given the divisions between the various parties on what should be the long-term replacement of Burnham, I do not see any way in which we can get an agreement with legislation enacted in time for April 1988. That is not realistic.

What is realistic is for the unions to take part in the interim arrangements. They have an important part in the process. I wish to remind the House of the involvement of the unions in the process. They will give evidence to the committee in the full glare of publicity, and they will be consulted on the committee's recommendations. Those are the union's statutory rights. They would serve their members better by preparing to use them effectively instead of by pretending that they have been completely cut out of the action.

Another of the accusations made by the hon. Member for Durham, North constituted the sixth fallacy—that Baker's interim means for ever. Interim means what it says. The Act set up temporary arrangements, and it expires in 1990. When procedures produce chaos and breakdown, one replaces them. If there is no agreement on what to replace them with, one goes for a short-term solution that will give everyone time in which to work together on the long-term solution. That is what we have done, and that is the purpose of the interim advisory committee. So far, the two big unions have merely repeated that they know the solution: to set up a joint negotiating council. That, however, amounts to Burnham revisited, and I am not prepared to go back to that. We need some real thought, real reflection and real analysis to find a long-term solution that is fair not only to teachers, but to parents, taxpayers, ratepayers and, above all, children. It is not simply a question of one group's rights. It is a question of finding machinery which fairly reflects the genuine interests of all these groups.

The interim advisory committee will provide us with a breathing space to work out effective permanent machinery. I have made it clear that I do not want to be the determiner of teachers' pay. I and my colleagues intend to enter into detailed discussions later in the year with all those with an interest, including the teacher unions, the local authority associations and the churches. I also want to find a way of bringing in the views of parents. This consultation will get under way early in the autumn.

The hon. Member for Durham, North says that I am putting it off. I remind him that I invited all the unions to come and see me to discuss the details of the order that is now before the House. Two of the unions that now recommend disruption refused to come and talk, but the other four unions did come.

To assist in this important process of consultation, the Government will publish a Green Paper surveying the issues and setting out a variety of alternative possible solutions. This document will carefully examine all the options and consider their relative merits. It will look at statutory and non-statutory negotiations. It will look at possible developments from the interim advisory committee machinery. It will also examine suggestions for separate arrangements for heads and deputy heads.

Will the Minister please tell the House whether he has a target date by which he wishes to see the replacement full-scale mechanism in place? Secondly, will he assure the House that he expects that within that mechanism the teachers' right to negotiate their own pay and conditions will be restored?

I can answer that point specifically. I have already said that I do not believe that it will be possible to find an agreement between the various interests for the April 1988 settlement. As I have said, that is because there are very deep differences of opinion. I am aware of the alliance proposals. They are for a form of independent review body coupled with a form of negotiations — a mixture of both systems, as I understand it. We must try to be fair to the alliance. Its proposals have been developed since they were debated in the Lords. That proposal needs the most careful consideration and will be considered in our Green Paper.

I do not think that it will be possible to get an agreed new permanent machinery by April 1988. However, that does not mean that we will not be able to get it in place by April 1989—that is, before 1990—and we must strive to do that.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he envisages a final end to majority voting in the successor to the Burnham committee as a means of achieving agreement more simply? Does he envisage separate negotiations for heads and deputy heads?

The Green Paper will set out the points for and against separate negotiations for heads and deputy heads. The largest head teachers' union, the National Association of Head Teachers, has put to me strongly the view that it would like heads to have a separate negotiating arrangement. That view is not shared by the smaller heads' union or, I believe, by the two other larger unions, although they have not been to see me about it.

The case for separating the determination of an ordinary teacher's pay from a head teacher's pay needs the most careful consideration. 'There is a strong case for it, but it has to be set out. If I were to announce that that is what I favour, I can assure my hon. Friend that several of the unions would say that they would not accept it because it had been put forward by the Government. We have to go through a process of consultation with interests wider than just the unions. There will have to be consultations with the local education authorities, with teachers and with parents.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as I was told only on Saturday morning by a teacher, it is not just the long-haired, bearded, corduroy brigade that represents the teachers of this country? Many people are tired of teachers thinking that their job is to represent activist teachers and not to attend to the problems of students? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to get teaching right in this country, it has to be on the basis of what is good for children, not what is good for teachers who want to be political activists more than they want to be teachers?

That is absolutely right. The difference between the union militants and activists and the bulk of the profession is vast. It is a huge gulf and we all know from our own experiences that the sorts of teachers we meet in schools we visit are very different from those we see on the television screen during union conferences. The prime consideration in all of this must be the welfare of the children. I do not believe that parents, or the country, accept that teachers are justified in walking out on their obligations and disrupting schools.

I was dealing with the various issues that could be covered in the Green Paper. The National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations has suggested a review body. The alliance has suggested the variation of a review body with some sort of negotiation or pendulurn arbitration. The Association of Municipal Authorities wrote to me last week suggesting a national joint council, recognising that it would have to take account of my statutory duties and powers in respect of school teachers.

That takes me back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made about majority voting, that with a national joint council one has to face head on the relative voting strengths of the various unions, their respective influence and authority, and their changing memberships. The membership of the two most militant unions is declining and the membership of the less militant unions is now rising. One also has to examine and determine the exact role of the Government because they still provide about 46 per cent. of the money.

The list I have just set out gives some idea of the wide range of possibilities and it shows the need to balance carefully the different interests of six unions, the local authority associations, the voluntary schools and parents, and the taxpayers, who must not be forgotten.

Because of the firmly entrenched and conflicting views about the best course of action for the future, general agreement involving the whole of the education service and the Government will not be easy to achieve. However, let my commitment to this consultation exercise put to rest the claim of the unions that the temporary machinery will be there fore ever.

I again make clear that the holder of my office would not want to be the determiner of teachers' pay and conditions. I am simply not prepared to lurch back into a form of Burnham. We have an opportunity now to find a long-term permanent arrangement that will be more effective than Burnham.

The last fallacy again was not touched upon by the hon. Member for Durham, North, because I do not believe that he favours disruption in our schools. The fallacy of the two union leaders is that they must disrupt because they have no choice. That is utter nonsense. It completely ignores the constructive path to be followed. We should use the breathing space granted by the interim advisory committee to work out a new, effective, long-term way of settling teachers' pay and conditions. Certainly more than half of the parents polled by MORI thought that teachers should not disrupt. Unions should abandon this negative, harmful course. The public relations officer of the NCPTA is now telling teachers that sympathy with them is not widespread among parents.

The public relations officer said:
"Threats of further disruption shock parents to the core."
The suggestion that parents would support strikes against their own children is a delusion.

I believe that most ordinary teachers consider that they have now been fairly treated as regards pay and conditions of employment. I understand their concern about permanent machinery. However, I ask the individual teacher to accept the necessity of the interim advisory committee as a temporary arrangement. We cannot just go back to the chaos of Burnham. We must be open-minded about devising effective long-term machinery. It is very important that all teachers should fully understand the present positon and the Government's intentions. I shall write to all head teachers during the next few days setting out the key points I have put to the House today.

I hope that over the months ahead agreement can be reached by all parties. But I must ask union and local authority leaders to be open-minded and not hidebound by past arrangements. They must realise that if there is a lesson to be learned from recent years it is that we cannot go back to a revamped Burnham.

In the meantime, I urge all teachers to put once again the care and education of children first. Their passage through the education system is a once-only lifetime chance. Their performances in the examinations many of them are shortly to take will have crucial effects on their future. I have pledged to resolve the question of future pay determination for teachers. I ask teachers to pledge the restoration of uninterrupted education for our nation's children.

10.21 pm

The atmosphere in the House is somewhat excitable tonight—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is clearly as excited as all his colleagues. Whether that is boyish enthusiasm for the forthcoming general election or the result of an over-generous dinner I shall leave future Hansard readers to decide for themselves.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mind the boyish enthusiasm, but the inference that I have had over too good a dinner when I have only ate here in my view is outrageous.

I hope that Hansard will carry my report in full and leave future readers to draw their own conclusions. I hope also that it will carry the hon. Gentleman's precise words because his grammar left as much to be desired as his sense.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not think that it was allowable for another hon. Member to impute the honour or grammar of any other Member. I find it extremely offensive that the hon. Gentleman has said that my grammar is not as good as what his is. I take great offence at that.

The hon. Gentleman does far too good a job imputing his own grammar to leave it to me.

I listened with great care to the speech of the Secretary of State. I remark merely that the national press has widely leaked the prospect of some great concession, some new initiative, that the Secretary of State is about to launch that would assist in the solution of the trench warfare that is now continuing in our schools—for which, let me be clear, the unions have a responsibility to bear. I believe that it was a silly and stupid action. It is my message—I believe that it is widely felt outside the House—that the Secretary of State has to bear some of the blame for the present situation because of the way in which he has managed the affair.

We sat on the edge of our chairs waiting for the great initiative to arrive—I wonder whether that is the right way to run such affairs—but, of course, nothing at all happened. There was some slight moderation in the tone, to which I shall refer later, but no prospect of any initiative to break the log-jam and deadlock that is now inflicting disruption upon our schools.

From the earliest days we said that the real issue in this dispute would never be pay: it was the removal from teachers of the right to negotiate pay and conditions. When that was said, it was greeted with some derision by the Minister and other Government Members, but so it has proved and so it remains today.

This order will put into effect legislation which has passed this House for the teachers' pay rise. For that reason, I agree with the Minister that it would be difficult to oppose the order and therefore to deny teachers the pay rise which has been granted, rather than negotiated. I am glad of this debate, because it enables us to make some broader comments about the handling of this sorry affair.

I do not seek, nor have I ever sought, to deny the Minister the right to impose a solution if the situation had come to pass that schools and the education system, therefore our children, were being damaged. We do not deny him that right, but whether or not this is the moment to do it is a matter of judgment. Any Secretary of State who had a proper regard for the democratic process and fundamental civil liberties, particularly of those 400,000 teachers who have held that right since 1919, would, at the moment he took that power to impose, have sought also to put in place some solid mechanism to replace those rights. If, when the Minister had taken that power, he had said, "I only want to have it and this is the time when it will come to an end," and had given some idea of how the negotiating right would be replaced, he would not have had this dispute on his hands or, if he had a dispute, the Left-wing extremist teachers—we saw many of them on the rostrums at the teachers' conference—would have been isolated and standing alone.

The Minister has created an issue about civil liberties—it has always been about that—which has unified the teachers across their unions and has driven the moderates into the hands of the extremists, instead of isolating the latter to bring peace to our schools. I have come to the conclusion that the extremists and the Secretary of State need each other. He needs the extremists to give him the votes at the ballot box, which he has been seeking in the way he has pursued this dispute; and they need him to give them a cause to unify the teachers' unions and put the moderates behind the extremists. They need and deserve each other.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain, when he talks of moderate teachers being driven into the hands of the extremists, why the Professional Association of Teachers and AMMA have grown at the rate they have in such a short time?

I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that when the members of AM MA came to discuss this action in the lobby in the House of Commons, they were united with the NUT and the NAS-UWT. It may be that they did not decide to strike, but they voted with them in their opposition to the withdrawal of their rights to negotiate pay and conditions.

The hon. Gentleman will also know as well as I do—at least, he should, given his background—that there are many moderate members of the NUT and the NAS-UWT. Their instinct is not to strike but they have been driven to support those Left-wing extremist calls that we heard so clearly at the teachers' conferences only a matter of weeks ago.

The hon. Gentleman must have received the same sort of letters that I have received from moderate teachers in the NUT and the NAS-UWT who are desperate about taking this action but who feel that they have no other way in which to defend their civil liberties. He will know the heart-searching that is going on. Conservative Members are shaking their heads, but all hon. Members who are interested and involved in education will have received such letters from moderate teachers belonging to those two unions, expressing their deep concern about taking the only action that they feel is open to them to preserve their civil liberties. Those are the people whom the Secretary of State has driven into the arms of the extremists. He has provided the one unifying call which was possible under the circumstances.

I pleaded with the Secretary of State in a letter of 5 April, as did my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party, to make some move. We gave him a number of options. He could have published a programme of how he saw matters developing in the restoration of those rights. He could even have published his own proposals. He could have taken any action to make sure that the teachers understood that he was committed to the restoration of their rights in the end.

It is simply not the case that the unions are united against the Government's proposals. Four of the unions have come out clearly against disruption. They are consulting and discussing with me. They have come in to discuss the order. I have just issued a further draft order and invited all the unions to discuss that with me. I have already received representations from two of the unions. I very much hope that the other two large unions will do so. Nor must the hon. Gentleman exaggerate the extent of disruption in our schools. Well under 1 per cent. of our schools have been disrupted.

I certainly do not want more, and I trust that no one in the House wants more. What I have suggested tonight is a path of discussion instead of disruption.

The Secretary of State should not misunderstand coming in to talk to him as support for his actions. There is a fundamental difference between the two. I very much hope that other unions will also come in to have discussions with him. But let us not misinterpret such actions as supporting his action in withdrawing their civil liberties. That is a misjudgment of the events, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

I make the point that I made clearly in my letter in April, which was also made by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party, that the end of the dispute is in the Secretary of State's hands. If he takes concrete action to lay down a programme for the restoration of teachers' rights, or puts forward his own proposals, the disruption will swiftly come to an end; what would then happen is what should have happened previously, and the extremists in both the unions would be isolated.

No, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me. I have given way three times and I should like to make a few more points before I sit down.

The Secretary of State has consistently refused to take such action. He has consistently refused to show much leadership. Therefore, we can only assume that he is more interested in playing party politics for votes than in bringing peace to our schools.

We now note some slight amelioration in tone. There have been no positive proposals, but there has been some slight amelioration in tone. One wonders why. Again, the answer is votes.

There is no doubt that the public have rumbled the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout in derision, but they have only to look at the opinion polls. That is what is driving the Secretary of State. I will put this point on the record. The opinion polls on the education issue and about who is responsible for the dispute show that many of the public the Secretary of State knows this—put the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs, at least in part—with the Secretary of State.

Conservative Members do not need to look at those polls. They can look at the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph or The Times last week and see that in the serious press the Secretary of State got some of the worst press for his part in this dispute that a Conservative Secretary of State has had for many years. There is no use dodging that. That is what has caused some softening. There are no concrete proposals, of course, I suspect that the Secretary of State has delivered too little too late.

The hon. Gentleman asks what I should like to tell him—what we propose. Before I tell him, I shall enter this warning: there are two elements to the order. One is pay. We would not vote against it— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Conservative Members obviously have not been listening. I said early in my speech that we will not vote against the order, because it gives the teachers their pay rise.

There is a second —[Interruption.] This is a short debate, but I will be heard if I have to repeat what I say several times. There is a second element to the order. It is certain conditions which are now to be followed by teachers. I do not mind if the Secretary of State has 15, 50 or 50,000 conditions. He knows as well as I do that, however many conditions he may have, he cannot define the duties, responsibilities and work of a teacher, unless he has the good will to put it into practice. It does not matter how many conditions he imposes. He has lost that good will. I suspect that those conditions will return to haunt him. There are many in the teaching profession who will follow those conditions to the letter and use that mechanism and the statutory instrument to disrupt schools.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenv, ay) asked what our proposals are. They are clear. They are laid down. The Secretary of State knows them. He referred to them clearly enough. If the hon. Member for Ealing, North wishes——

I shall come to that in a moment. If hon. Gentlemen wish, I can take another 10 minutes in this short debate to explain them again. I should like to give their ingredients. First, they will return the rights to negotiate pay and conditions for teachers. Secondly, they will establish a mechanism for unblocking blockages in negotiations. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but I shall explain later why they would be well advised not to rubbish them too far. Thirdly, our proposals will provide a framework for negotiations. Fourthly, they will encourage the unions and the local education authorities to speak with a single voice. Fifthly, they will give a legitimate and proper role to the Secretary of State. I recognise that neither Burnham nor the joint negotiating council did that, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said. Sixthly, they will enable some kind of ultimate solution — [Interruption.] — to be enacted, if necessary — [Interruption.] I do not mind how long this disruption continues. I will make my points heard. It is of no consequence to me if Conservative Members intervene. It is their debate. If they want to speak in it later, perhaps they will listen.

Our proposals will allow for a process of pendulum arbitration to achieve a final solution. [Interruption.] I can hear Conservative Members doing their best to shout down our proposals. They laugh, but perhaps they should laugh on the other side of their faces. I make this prediction: when the Secretary of State comes up with his final solution, it is likely to be very close to what we have just suggested. He knows that very well. That is why—Conservative Members might note this—he gave it a cautious welcome in his speech. We have not found the right hon. Gentleman taking the same attitude as other Conservative Members.

Those who support these proposals include many whom the Secretary of State has prayed in aid on many occasions. These proposals, first put forward in the other place, are supported in broad outline by the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations, the National Association of Head Teachers, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Professional Association of Teachers and the Secondary Heads Association. All those moderate unions — [Interruption.] — to which the Secretary of State referred, unions whose opinions in the past he has said he values, support them. But we know — [Interruption.] ——

Order. Back-Bench Members complained when the Secretary of State appeared not to be getting a fair hearing. I hope they will have in mind the complaints they made then and will give the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) a fair hearing equal to that for which they were asking.

It is their own debate that Conservative Members are interrupting, so it worries me not in the slightest if they prolong my speech.

It is evident in the House, in the serious press and among the public at large that the Secretary of State has been rumbled. He has failed in his job to lead the education service out of this dispute. He could have done so; the power to do it was in his hands. Indeed, his actions are seen by many as a contribution to the continuing disruption in the schools. He has been discovered as rather too slick and ambitious for the nation's good. He has been found out.

We shall not oppose the order, because the right hon. Gentleman has shown at least some movement and because it institutes the new pay deal. But we do so for this year alone, and we demand that the right hon. Gentleman now puts schools before his own and his party's electoral advantage. He must now move substantially, as he can, to end the dispute without further delay.

10.43 pm

It is easy in a complicated situation such as this to postulate a number of general principles of total acceptability and say that because that is the path one wants to follow, that is the way forward. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) should accept that that is similar to saying of sin that we are all against it; at least, we all have to say we are against it.

I have little doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right and that when eventually the Secretary of State's proposals emerge, after extensive consultation, they will contain a number of the points he made, simply because no sensible set of proposals could avoid doing so, being in general principle the sort that we are all anxious to see. I draw the line, though, at unblocking blockages. He is not the type of doctor in whose hands I should like to find myself, and I was not sure what he had in mind in his references to blockages.

The hon. Gentleman underestimates the present problem in relation to the sheer unwieldiness of the immediate past Burnham machinery. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he had no intention of toppling back into that machinery. It is hopelessly unwieldy, and let us remember the essential weaknesses associated with it. As it grew, like Topsy, it was dominated until recently by one union, which itself was dominated by electoral considerations of numbers—that is, the broad numbers of largely junior teachers. Therefore, there was inbuilt opposition to any arrangement that would make special provision for shortage subjects, for example, for special skills or for special responsibilities.

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a great opportunity that I should like to outline briefly in what can be only a short debate. First, the blame must be laid firmly where it belongs. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor have taken a good deal of stick in the debate, and that is fair in an assembly of this sort, but the main blame for the position in which we find ourselves lies in the leadership of the two main teacher unions. Any observer who has watched the scene for a number of years will be saddened that the two main unions are led by pygmies. Some of us look back and remember great names such as Gould, Britton and Casey. I pause for a moment to mark Mr. Casey's recent death, which caused great sadness to a wide range of individuals who did not share his views. These were big men, and no one could say that they sat in the lap of or were subject to the diktat of, the Department of Education and Science. No one could say, either, that they did not represent their membership. Unfortunately, strident trade unionism has led us away month by month from the commitment to professionalism, which must surely he the way in which in future the education service is administered.

I speak harshly this evening because I wish my contribution to the debate to reflect my strong feelings. Much of the industrial disruption that took place last year was because the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers had to prove his virility and his claim to office in the TUC. That is the reality. We know — hon. Members on both sides of the House have the connections that enable them to know that this is so—that many of his members are deeply unhappy with his actions and are leaving the union. Hon. Members are not the only people who have contacts. There are important members of the general secretary's headquarters who are deeply unhappy about and concerned with his strategy.

No trade union can overturn the elected will of the House that is set out in a measure that has been enacted by Parliament. Those teachers who are conducting the present campaign had better understand clearly that the relevant Act remains upon the statute book and that no amount of disruption will have it repealed by the presently constituted House, or any other House.

It is right that teaching is often referred to as a profession, but the dreadfully sad truth is that in Britain it is not. The hallmark of a profession is that it is self-governing and self-disciplined, and in this country teaching is neither. There are one or two others in this place who have had the enormous privilege that I have enjoyed of serving in the Department of Education and Science, and who have had the unpleasant task, like those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who now occupy the Treasury Bench, of administering discipline. They are the ultimate court of appeal. I wish to share with the House the anguish that I used to feel—I am sure that it is felt by Ministers of all political persuasions—and the hours that I used to spend upon such matters. I had a feeling of horror that it was upon a Minister that a decision eventually had to rest. Such decisions related to the professional future of a man or woman. In a profession, such matters are determined by the profession itself. We have an opportunity here, as the whole matter is in the melting pot, to create a professional body—if we take some time to do this—which will be self-governing and self-disciplining. It is not without the bounds of possibility that groups within the profession should be specially represented. That applies to other professions.

I accept that there are major decisions for the existing unions and for the Government. It is not impossible that this might require the central employment of teachers, and until now I have considered that with the greatest reluctance. I do not care for moves to centralisation and the centralisation of power. However, as part of the general concept that I have sought briefly to put before the House, central employment may be one of the features, if it was balanced by the professional body of strength, professional power and professionalism, that I envisage for the teaching profession.

Those of us who have never taught and who are not adequate to teach should always remember the demanding nature of the teaching profession. To care for very young children, older children or students, day after day, to give of one's very best, and to remember that one is always in the public eye, always in the front and always to have to give a good or, sadly, a bad example, is mighty demanding. At times, we Conservative Members rightly expressed the strongest views about disruption. We carefully distinguished between the leaders and the followers in those matters. However, our words should never fail to do honour to the many man and women who devotedly, day in and day out in our schools, give their very best to the young people in their care.

10.52 pm

It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee), who chairs the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts very well indeed. Even when we profoundly disagree with what he says, we must — as I always do — listen to his comments with respect and courtesy. However, I hope that parents and teachers will take note that this very serious subject was treated for some time at the beginning of the debate with levity and rowdiness. An attempt was made to stifle the opposing view. I hope that hon. Members will do me the courtesy of listening to the serious view that I want to put forward. The Secretary of State has missed out a great deal which I know that he knows about and I want to raise those points.

The bland and urbane effrontery with which the Secretary of State—his effrontery knows no bounds—treats this subject is angering people and making him vastly unpopular not only with teachers, but with many honourable people who want to see an end to this disruption caused by the Government and by the Secretary of State's attitude.

When the hon. Member for Wokingham invokes the names of Sir Ronald Gould, who, as he knows, died last year and was a great friend of mine, of Ted Britton, who was at the NUT conference this year, and of Terry Casey of the NAS, for whom I had great respect and knew for many years, he missed out an important point in saying that they did not do the things that are being done today. However, there was never any mention of negotiating rights being taken away from their unions. The difference between them and this Government and this Secretary of State is that the Government are doing something which not only the teachers' unions but the entire trade union movement cannot tolerate because the reason for the existence of a union is its negotiating right, and it has a right to negotiate freely—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members interrupt me rudely as though I am saying something wrong, in the alphabet of politics they are stumbling over the letter A. The reality is that they will bring into play a vast number of people who, at this stage, are holding their hands. Those people know that if negotiating rights are taken from the teachers, it will next be the civil servants and the public service unions and then an attack on the entire trade union movement, in keeping with the anti-trade union laws.

This discussion is not only about the order; it is an opportunity to discuss something else, using the order as vehicle for so doing. The fundamental problem that we are discussing is the right of a trade union to negotiate freely with its employers. We can never allow that to be taken away from us. It took hundreds of years to get it, and we shall not relinquish it. The Government and the Secretary of State know that as well sa I do.

The tribute paid in the last sentence of the speech by the hon. Member for Wokingham made it clear that teachers teach because they want to teach children. God knows that there is little enough in it for them. I should like to see some Conservative Members take a class all day for the pittance that the teachers have been getting. However, the issue is no longer about money, nor, temporarily, is it about conditions. It is, as I have said, about the right to negotiate.

In Russia, teachers are only an advisory committee. In Chile, teachers are only an advisory committee. Franco had them as an advisory committee. The incipient and developing tyranny that the arrogance of power among Conservative Members is bringing about is appalling.

We believe in a good education for our children and we need no lectures from those who send their childern to private schools and heap inequity on our children —[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will not stand up and tell me how many children he has at school. I am interested not in his sexual prowess but in something rather more than that.

In Britain, no previous Government of any political colour has tried to deprive a trade union of its negotiating powers. However, the present Government have retreated from position to position. But for the rudeness of Conservative Members, it would be laughable — those public school louts who do not want to listen to the other case that is being put—that, as the Secretary of State knows, the Government have retreated from position to position. They offered 4 per cent. to the teachers and finished up at 16·4 per cent.

Does the Secretary of State think that the teachers would have got anything more if they had not struggled for the education of children and for a living wage on which to teach them properly? Does he think that the gentlemen with supple spines among the NAHT would have got what they were after without the unions who fought for them? Does he think that PAT members will not eagerly reach out their hands for the money which others have fought, struggled and paid for?

The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to their support because people who pack it in and, with their crocodile tears, intone incantations about how much they love the children are not fit to struggle alongside. To Tory Members who say, "How much we love the children", I say "Come off it. Who do you think you're talking to?" We know how much they love our children when they make the schools miserable places, leave the roofs leaking, provide too few books and deny schools the wherewithal. In posh areas money comes from parents, but children in poor areas must put up with what they can get. That is the reality.

The Government were dragged kicking and screaming to the 16·4 per cent. increase. The Secretary of State, with such blandness, says what a good offer it is, but his predecessor talked in the same way and he was defeated, as this one will be. They thought they could impose their will easily, but they cannot. The Secretary of State's offer has turned out to be a crown of thorns. Today I have spoken to some union leaders, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman in advance that it will not be accepted because he is still depriving teachers of the very thing they need—the right to negotiate freely.

The Secretary of State has never made a bigger mistake. Parents and many others support the teachers. The Government now face an election while they are in a mess about education and the teachers' dispute. That is why the Secretary of State has come here tonight with this so-called olive branch. Three quarters of the teaching profession are solidly against the Government and what is happening to our children's education. The Secretary of State may say that that does not matter because four unions support his proposals, but those four unions do not represent even a quarter of the profession. Two unions represent three quarters. The Secretary of State should go among them and, instead of arrogantly talking, he should with a little humility try to learn something from them. [Interruption.]

The two main unions, the NUT and NAS/UWT——

Order. Earlier Conservative Members below the Gangway called for a fair hearing for the Secretary of State. I hope that they will be prepared to — [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) raised a point of order earlier. It ill behoves him now to ignore the reproach I am levelling at him, among others, that he should be prepared to give to other Members the fair hearing he requested for his Minister.

The NUT and NAS/UWT were backed by their annual conferences of freely elected delegates. That has never been the case at a Tory conference or certain other conferences which I could mention. The delegates were elected properly and democratically which is something that the Tory party will never understand, despite its immense propaganda machine. At those conferences an overwhelming majority voted to carry out industrial action. Then — this is something that the Secretary of State never told the House, so I shall—as I told the Secretary of State the other day when he brushed it off in his usual casual, arrogant way, thereby deepening his dilemma, those two unions wrote to the Prime Minister, asking to meet her to discuss free negotiating rights for the unions. She replied that she found it surprising that the two unions should want to have a meeting now as both unions had refused the invitation from the Secretary of State for Education and Science to discuss the draft order on teachers' pay and conditions.

That is totally untrue, and, like most of the material in the letter, it is a distortion of reality.

The Minister knows as well as I do that what the unions wanted to discuss with him and the Prime Minister was not wages and conditions but negotiating rights, and that is why he will not speak to them. He is willing to speak about water that has gone under the bridge, but the fundamental problem that we now face is the disruption of our children's education by the Minister and the Government, not by us.

Nobody wants to teach the children more than the teachers. One could not be a teacher if one did not want honourably to teach children. Anybody who thinks that one can go into a classroom and teach without having a great affection for the children is dreaming. Conservative Members have had teachers. They know that their teachers did not receive vast salaries and that they taught because they wanted to do so.

The abuse that I have received from Conservative Members characterises their attitude towards this subject. They do not regard it with proper seriousness. I hope that that gets into the press so that everybody knows it. Some Conservative Members genuinely and honourably want to solve this problem, but members of the ultra-Right wing that is in command of the Tory party do not want to solve it, and one begins to wonder whether they want the disruption to children's education which they have caused in the last couple of years.

11.5 pm

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) asked whether Conservative Members wanted to solve this dispute. We all want to solve this dispute, and that has not only been the case tonight. Conservative Members have made many suggestions as to how the dispute could be solved.

This is a short debate, so I will make only a couple of points. First, I detected from what the hon. Member for Hillsborough said that he welcomed the pay agreement but that he was dissatisfied about negotiating rights. I hope that he will realise that, as we are in negotiation. there should be give and take. The unions that are in dispute with the Government could at least say that they will protect O-level classes for this term. It is the last year of the O-level examination. It is an exceptionally important examination which will weigh heavily with employers as we move to a new system. The least that we could expect at this stage of the problem is that the O-level classes will be protected.

Secondly, while the teaching unions are in dispute they should look for some outside advice, because they are trying to set up a new negotiating system, which many firms and industries are constantly doing. I and my hon. Friends have said to the unions, "Why do you not seek advice from firms, employers' organisations and the Industrial Society, which for years have spent their time creating new negotiating machinery?" The unions should be seen to be coming forward with constructive ideas, riot just blazing away at the Government and saying that the Government are half-hearted about negotiations.

As to the order, I shall make one point. In the section on cover and in the section on working time there are two matters which rely on good will. There is what I would call the "three-day rule" under "cover." In that section it says that cover will not be provided,
"unless — it is not reasonably practicable for the maintaining authority to provide a supply teacher to provide cover".

Under "Working time" section 4(f) says that a teacher will,
"work such additional hours as may be needed to enable him to discharge effectively his professional duties."
Paragraph (f) goes on to say that duties,
"shall not be defined by the employer but shall depend upon the work needed to discharge the teacher's duties."

One of the many constructive matters that the Government have done for the education service in the last eight years has been massively to strengthen and improve the curriculum and pour millions of pounds into it so that it is better planned and better constructed to give young people a better chance when they leave school. The professional duties of teachers require that they make the new curriculum effective. Any argument about cover and working time—and there is bound to be some argument as we are in new territory—should always bear in mind that the new and improved curriculum is what matters in teachers' duties. If the curriculum takes root we shall have better opportunities for young people when they leave school. A new examination system is coming in. Above all. we shall have a greater recognition of teachers' professionalism if they work the new curriculum well.

I appeal to the teachers when considering this statutory instrument to bear in mind, if they have problems over cover and working time, that what matters most is that the vastly improved curriculum is made effective. I appeal to them to work the new document in the spirit in which it is written, which is asking for constructive negotiation with the teaching profession.

11.10 pm

I have listened to the whole debate. I came here expecting the statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science that has been advertised in some of the prior comments about the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) suggested that he, too, came to the debate hoping that, despite all the events of the past, the Secretary of State would make at least some gesture. I have been following the debate to see whether that would happen.

Anyone who has followed the dispute must recognise that some of the fault lies with the Minister and with the Government. To suggest, as some of the more raucous Tory Members have done in interruptions, that all the blame rests with the trade unions, is absurd. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) made comments on the personalities. He is a fair-minded person and I do not think he could possibly try to load all the responsibility for the dispute on to one or two leaders of the two main unions. Of course, they have been responding to their members. Anyone who followed the dispute could see how they were representing their members, especially at the recent conferences. It is utter absurdity for the Government to try to pretend at this eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth or whatever hour that all the blame rests with the unions.

Like others, I came to see whether the Secretary of State at this stage in the proceedings had learned the beginnings of humility, which for him would be the first step back on the road of wisdom. If only he had had the humility to say, "Maybe I did make a mistake; maybe I am not so knowledgeable about the whole educational world," he could have made a gesture and started back on the road to sensible negotiation.

The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that it is not only the teachers and the teacher unions who have been up in arms. I do not know whether hon. Members have read the debate in another place about universities in which eminent leaders representing all the universities said that, after six or seven years of this Government having been in power, the morale among university teachers was at rock bottom. Anyone can see the appalling state of affairs in many universities, including Cardiff. The Government have made a few monetary gestures over the last few weeks. Although anything is welcome, they have not cured the appalling position in universities and the desperately lowered morale in education which they have piled up in the last seven or eight years.

The same is true of the rest of the educational system. There has been a lowering of standards, of morale and of the teaching being given to the children, chiefly because of the failure of the Government. We thought that, when the new Secretary of State arrived, he might apply to these problems some of the arts of public expression in which he is so proficient. As I said when the right hon. Gentleman was briefly absent, I thought that he might come to the debate and start on the process of trying to repair the present state of affairs. He has failed to do so, and has thereby made matters all the more difficult for himself. Sooner or later, proper, full negotiating rights will be restored to the teaching profession. If the Government agree to that, why do they not say so right away, and move speedily in that direction?

However, the Government have a reserve position—I daresay the Minister is guilty of this too—and believe that there is some political capital to be gained from trying to browbeat the teachers, in the same way that they think that there is capital to be gained from the other sections of the community that they try to browbeat. The right hon. Gentleman should have the nerve and courage to go back to the wretched Tory Cabinet and say that he will start to restore the same negotiating rights to the teaching profession that are enjoyed elsewhere. For a change, he should take back messages from the House of Commons, instead of bringing messages from the Cabinet.

The right hon. Gentleman has so far failed us. I hope that he will pluck up the courage to come forward in the next debate, and it will be better if that is before the election, because it is highly probable that he will have no chance of doing so after it.

11.18 pm

It is always a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), if for no other reason than that we attended the same private school. I hope that my children, who attend the local village school, will end up as eloquent as the right hon. Gentleman; I hope to match his eloquence some day, too.

There should be no doubt that hon. Members on both sides of the House want an end of the sordid dispute of the past two years. It is a completely futile waste of time to be striking and demonstrating against a system that failed. If one examines the negotiating rights that are the alleged touchstone of the problem, one finds that they were not exercised, because they did not work. Much more often than not, settlements were reached by being imposed or arbitrated. There was rarely a settlement as a result of the negotiations between the teachers, the local authorities and the paymasters. That was the fatal flaw in the system.

We must therefore look forward. One of the most important features of the instrument that we are debating is the list of the contractual requirements of a schoolteacher. It is a great shame that the teaching profession — of which I still count myself a member — has come to a time when we must list teachers' duties and responsibilities. That has lowered the tone of teachers' professionalism. However, no one should doubt the sincere anger and frustration that is felt throughout the teaching profession about what has happened.

We do not move any further forward by imputing blame to the teachers' unions' leaders or to the Government—some of it will be true. We must get away from all that and look forward to the future. The time-limited Act and the order provide a great opportunity for the teachers' unions and members of the teaching profession who are in such disarray to get their act together, come forward and accept the repeated offer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk and negotiate a new settlement and arrangement for the long term. I believe my right hon. Friend when he says that he wants to see that sooner rather than later. I hope that it will be very soon and certainly within the designated three years.

My right hon. Friend has done a great deal for the teaching profession, if only because he has knocked together certain heads in the profession. I regret that, as usual, it is the children who have suffered. Too often they are left out of the equation from dawn to dusk and beyond. The teachers want to do a professional job and are more and more being blamed for the ills of society. We too readily forget the statistics published by the Department of Education and Science which show that not only are examination results better than they were, but that the general education provided for our children is rapidly increasing. I strongly support the teaching profession. This order must be temporary. The quicker we can get back to an alternative arrangement with full consultation and negotiation the better; but let us use this opportunity positively.

11.20 pm

I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that the quicker we get back to proper negotiations the better. It is sad that we did not have more conciliatory speeches from other hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that the Government ought to give careful consideration to the matter of cover. Everyone welcomes the fact that there will now be cover after three days, but that will be practicable only if we address ourselves to the problem of supplying teachers. I plead with the Government to have urgent discussions with the local authorities about how supply cover can be provided in some of the inner-city areas and in London where it is proving difficult to attract supply teachers.

In four minutes I cannot go into much of the detail of the order. It is sad that, although the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been in office for 11 months, he has not dealt with this problem. He came in quite clearly aware that, after seven years of Conservative Government, education was neglected. Even though he knew very little about state education, he must have been conscious that he had to face three major problems — the general certificate of secondary education, resources for higher education and the whole question of teachers' pay. In all that time he has turned most of his attention and most of his officials' time to gimmicks rather than addressing himself to the real problem.

If only the right hon. Gentleman had put half the effort that he has put into the new technology colleges into trying to provide resources for the GCSE, it would have made a tremendous difference. He talked glibly last week about making schools elastic and about taking curriculum away from the experts, the teachers, and giving them back problems of purchasing and he went for a gimmick a day to keep the parents and teachers at bay. If he had not done those things but had addressed the problems of solving the teachers' dispute, he could have produced a solution, as could any Secretary of State worthy of the office.

During the 11 months that he has been in office, the right hon. Gentleman has taken every opportunity to make life more difficult for the local authorities and the teachers' unions. In the negotiations at Coventry and Nottingham. he tended to emphasise the disagreements and when agreements had been reached he talked to each of the unions and tried to encourage them to go back on the discussions that they had had. He went on trying to cause disruption. Then, when he failed to make any progress with the teacher unions or the local authorities, he went for the simple solution of forcing legislation through the House. At this stage, he is still telling us that he has no replacement at all for Burnhain.

It is quite clear that people on all sides in the discussions were saying for at least two years that they were dissatisfied with the Burnham procedure. All that the Secretary of State is able to offer us today is a Green Paper in the autumn on possible alternatives. It is amazing that the Secretary of State can spend 11 months looking at this problem and still not come up with any solution to the negotiating problem. He ought to come up far more quickly with an alternative to Burnham. A Green Paper produced 15 or 16 months after the problem landed on his desk is totally unacceptable.

The Secretary of State ought to attempt a quick solution to this dispute. His only other choice continued disruption in the schools. He said that only 2 per cent. of schools were affected and it seemed to me that, from the Dispatch Box, he was daring the teacher unions to increase it. If he does not get disruption, he will get sullen acceptance. He ought to take a little time off from his electioneering and do the positive thing: get the teachers' unions and the local authorities together, produce new negotiating machinery and say that he will restore that procedure. If he did that, he would bring peace back to our schools and ensure that all children benefit from their education rather than being in the centre of continuing conflicts in the running down of our state education system.

11.26 pm

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) mentioned cover. He well knows that some authorities have more generous arrangements for cover. The order enables them to retain such arrangements as they wish because it is a matter for local decision. It is recognised that there are some shortages of supply teachers and that it is not right for children to be sent home because teachers will not cover. That is recognised in the order.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was naive, both in his perception of what has been happening with the teachers' union and also because of what he thought happened in Burnham. It was absolutely right of' my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee) to condemn the whole machinery of the Burnham negotiations. Those negotiations were only about fixed position, recruitment to particular unions and press headlines. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was quite right to say that the whole machinery had completely broken down. I know that because, like a very few others in the House, I was on the Burnham committee.

There has been a continuous story of disruption and disunity among the unions. Last autumn, I think it was. the NUT and the AM MA appeared to be acting together. But the AM MA membership voted clearly earlier this year not to pursue strike action. The NAS/UWT is now proclaiming the virtues of a negotiated settlement, yet it consistently refused to put its name to any of the so-called agreements reached in the past nine months.

It is now the so-called "unity" between the NUT arid the NAS/UWT that is presented in the headlines. But that unity is fragile. NUT members voted to merge with the NAS/UWT but the NAS/UWT would not even discuss merging with the NUT. The NAS/UWT's annual report to this year's conference, about the NUT's behaviour in 1986 when campaigning against the settlement for 1985, stated:
"The NUT engaged in a vicious and scurrilous campaign to try to persuade NAS/UWT members. Facts were distorted and truth turned upside down by the NUT in their campaign."

At the Easter conferences, both those major unions received wide television and press coverage and most parents and teachers must have been horrified to see the parade of militants on their television screens. The display of miltancy and narrow-mindedness can only undermine the esteem in which teachers are held.

The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned that my right hon. Friend had not brought any different proposals before the House this evening, but my right hon. Friend announced that the Government are prepared to commit themselves to produce a radical and constructive Green Paper, which I hope will include the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury.

The hon. Member for Yeovil also made constructive suggestions, which I hope we shall see within the Green Paper, because all those things deserve to be discussed and looked at. Unless the Labour party wants to alienate parents even further, the teachers' unions should be prepared to be equally constructive. They will continue to lose public support if they continue to follow the line of Mr. Smithies, who was quoted recently as saying:
"We are not in the business to damage pupils more than is strictly necessary."
Such threats are totally unacceptable to the public and the parents. The real issue and what the House should hear about tonight is the education of our children being continued full-time within our schools.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 211.

Division No. 156]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Abse, LeoCocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Adams, Allen (Paisley N)Cohen, Harry
Anderson, DonaldConlan, Bernard
Archer, Rt Hon PeterCook, Frank (Stockton North)
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.Corbett, Robin
Barron, KevinCorbyn, Jeremy
Bell, StuartCraigen, J. M.
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)Crowther, Stan
Bermingham, GeraldCunliffe, Lawrence
Bidwell, SydneyDalyell, Tam
Blair, AnthonyDavies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Boyes, RolandDavis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Bray, Dr JeremyDeakins, Eric
Brown, Gordon (D'f''mline E)Dixon, Donald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)Dobson, Frank
Caborn, RichardDormand, Jack
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)Douglas, Dick
Campbell-Savours, DaleDubs, Alfred
Canavan, DennisDuffy, A. E. P.
Carter-Jones, LewisEadie, Alex
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)Eastham, Ken
Clarke, ThomasEvans, John (St. Helens N)
Clay, RobertFatchett, Derek
Clelland, David GordonField, Frank (Birkenhead)
Clwyd, Mrs AnnFisher, Mark

Flannery, MartinMorris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Foot, Rt Hon MichaelNellist, David
Foster, DerekO'Brien, William
Foulkes, GeorgeO'Neill, Martin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
George, BrucePark, George
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr JohnPatchett, Terry
Godman, Dr NormanPendry, Tom
Golding, Mrs LlinPike, Peter
Gould, BryanPowell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)Prescott, John
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)Radice, Giles
Harrison, Rt Hon WalterRandall, Stuart
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)Raynsford, Nick
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)Redmond, Martin
Home Robertson, JohnRees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)Richardson, Ms Jo
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Janner, Hon GrevilleRogers, Allan
John, BrynmorRooker, J. W.
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon GeraldSedgemore, Brian
Lamond, JamesSheerman, Barry
Leadbitter, TedSheldon, Rt Hon R.
Leighton, RonaldShore, Rt Hon Peter
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)Short, Mrs H.(Whampt'n NE)
Litherland, RobertSkinner, Dennis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)
McDonald, Dr OonaghSoley, Clive
McGuire, MichaelStott, Roger
MacKenzie, Rt Hon GregorStraw, Jack
McNamara, KevinThompson, J. (Wansbeck)
McTaggart, RobertTinn, James
McWilliam, JohnWardell, Gareth (Gower)
Marek, Dr JohnWareing, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)Welsh, Michael
Martin, MichaelWigley, Dafydd
Maxton, JohnWilliams, Rt Hon A.
Maynard, Miss JoanWinnick, David
Meacher, Michael
Michie, WilliamTellers for the Ayes:
Mikardo, IanMr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

NOES

Aitken, JonathanBudgen, Nick
Alexander, RichardBulmer, Esmond
Amess, DavidBurt, Alistair
Ancram, MichaelButterfill, John
Ashby, DavidCarlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vally)Chapman, Sydney
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)Chope, Christopher
Baldry, TonyChurchill, W. S.
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Beaumont-Dark, AnthonyClark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Bendall, VivianClark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Benyon, WilliamConway, Derek
Biffen, Rt Hon JohnCoombs, Simon
Biggs-Davison, Sir JohnCope, John
Blackburn, JohnCormack, Patrick
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir PeterCouchman, James
Bonsor, Sir NicholasCranborne, Viscount
Boscawen, Hon RobertCurrie, Mrs Edwina
Bottomley, PeterDickens, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Mrs VirginiaDorrell, Stephen
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)Dunn, Robert
Boyson, Dr RhodesDurant, Tony
Brandon-Bravo, MartinEdwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Bright, GrahamEmery, Sir Peter
Brinton, TimEvennett, David
Brittan, Rt Hon LeonEyre, Sir Reginald
Brooke, Hon PeterFallon, Michael
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)Farr, Sir John
Browne, JohnFavell, Anthony
Bruinvels, PeterFenner, Dame Peggy
Bryan, Sir PaulFletcher, Sir Alexander
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.Fookes, Miss Janet

Forman, NigelMacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)Maclean, David John
Forth, EricMadel, David
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)Major, John
Freeman, RogerMalins, Humfrey
Fry, PeterMalone, Gerald
Gale, RogerMaples, John
Galley, RoyMarland, Paul
Garel-Jones, TristanMarlow, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir IanMarshall, Michael (Arundel)
Goodhart, Sir PhilipMates, Michael
Gow, IanMather, Sir Carol
Gower, Sir RaymondMaxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Greenway, HarryMeyer, Sir Anthony
Gregory, ConalMiller, Hal (B'grove)
Griffiths, Sir EldonMills, lain (Meriden)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)Miscampbell, Norman
Ground, PatrickMitchell, David (Hants NW)
Grylls, MichaelMoate, Roger
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)Moore, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr KeithMorrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Hanley, JeremyMoynihan, Hon C.
Hannam, JohnNeale, Gerrard
Hargreaves, KennethNelson, Anthony
Harris, DavidNeubert, Michael
Harvey, RobertNewton, Tony
Haselhurst, AlanNicholls, Patrick
Hawksley, WarrenNorris, Steven
Hayes, J.Onslow, Cranley
Hayward. RobertOppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Heathcoat-Amory, DavidOttaway, Richard
Heddle, JohnPage, Richard (Herts SW)
Henderson, BarryPatten, Christopher (Bath)
Hickmet, RichardPatten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.Pawsey, James
Hind, KennethPercival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Hirst, MichaelPollock, Alexander
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)Porter, Barry
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)Powell, William (Corby)
Hordern, Sir PeterPowley, John
Howard, MichaelPrice, Sir David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)Proctor, K. Harvey
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)Raffan, Keith
Hubbard-Miles, PeterRaison, Rt Hon Timothy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)Rathbone, Tim
Jackson, RobertRhodes James, Robert
Johnson Smith, Sir GeoffreyRhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir KeithRossi, Sir Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs ElaineRowe, Andrew
Kershaw, Sir AnthonyRumbold, Mrs Angela
Key, RobertRyder, Richard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Knight, Greg (Derby N)Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Knowles, MichaelSoames, Hon Nicholas
Knox, DavidStern, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon NormanStevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Latham, MichaelSumberg, David
Lawler, GeoffreyTemple-Morris, Peter
Lawrence, IvanThompson, Donald (Calder V)
Lee, John (Pendle)Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)Thurnham, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Markvan Straubenzee, Sir W.
Lester, JimWakeham, Rt Hon John
Lightbown, DavidWatts, John
Lilley, PeterWells, Bowen (Hertford)
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)Winterton, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)Young, Sir George (Acton)
Lord, Michael
Lyell, NicholasTellers for the Noes:
McCurley, Mrs AnnaMr. Michael Portillo and Mr. Francis Maude.
Macfarlane, Neil
MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.